



4 




» 

































* 

















* 













































N * 



t 


































































► 






















































BAPTISM 

AND 



THE SUPPER 


THE DISUSE OE TYPICAL RITES 


IN THE 

WORSHIP OP GOD. 


BY 

J. J. GURNEY. 



PHILADELPHIA: 

A. LEWIS, 109 NORTH TENTH STREET. 
1873. 















a 



*> • •) 















ON THE DISUSE 


OF ALL 


TYPICAL RITES I THE WORSHIP OF GOD, 


Though it is almost universally allowed among 
Christians, that, when the new covenant was esta¬ 
blished in the world, by the death of Christ, the cere¬ 
monies of the Jewish law were abolished, there are 
two religious rites of a very similar description, the 
maintenance of which is still very generally insisted 
upon, as necessary to the edification, and true order of 
the church of Christ. These rites are baptism with 
water , and that participation of bread and wine, 
which is usually called the sacrament of the Lord’s Sup¬ 
per. So great are the virtue and efficacy ascribed to 
these ceremonies, that they are considered, by very 
many Christians, to be especial means of grace, or me¬ 
diums through which grace is conveyed to, the soul; 
and not a few theologians, both ancient and modern, 
appear to have entertained the extraordinary opinion, 
that the rite of baptism, more especially, is indispen¬ 
sable to salvation. 

On the other hand, I am informed, that in some 
parts of the continent of Europe, there are small so- 



5 



6 ON THE DISUSE OF ALL TYPICAL RITES 


cieties of pious Christians, by whom water-baptism 
and the ceremony of the Lord’s supper are entirely 
disused;* and that such is the fact in the Society of 
Friends is generally understood. It is our belief that 
we have been led out of the practice of these rite3 by 
the Spirit of truth; that we could not recur to them 
without grieving our heavenly Monitor; and that, in 
fact, they are not in accordance with the entire spi¬ 
rituality of the gospel dispensation. 

In order to explain our views on the subject, I must 
remark, in limine , that the ceremonies in question, as 
now practised among Christians, must be considered 
as forming a part of their system of worship: for they 
are, in the first place, in the strictest sense of the terms, 
religious rites performed in supposed obedience to the 
command of the Almighty; and, secondly, they are 
employed in immediate connexion with the more di¬ 
rect, and generally with the public acts of divine wor¬ 
ship. Such being the state of the case, the objection 
of Friends to the use of these ordinances will be per¬ 
ceived to have its foundation in a principle of ac¬ 
knowledged importance, and one which is clearly re¬ 
vealed in the New Testament, that, under the Chris¬ 
tian dispensation, the worship of God is not to be 
formal, ceremonial, or typical, but spiritual. 

* This is the case, as I understand, with the Inspires in Germany, and 
with the Malakans in South Russia. 


IN TIIE WORSHIP OF GOD. 


7 


This principle was declared in a clear and forcible 
manner by Jesus Christ himself. When the woman 
of Samaria, with whom he condescended to converse 
by the well of Sychar, spoke to him of the worship 
observed by the Jews at Jerusalem, and by the Sama¬ 
ritans on Mount Gerizim, our Lord answered, “ Wo¬ 
man, believe me, the hour cometh, when ye shall nei¬ 
ther in this mountain, nor yet at Jerusalem, worship 

the Father.The hour cometh, and now is, when 

the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spi¬ 
rit and in truth ; for the Father seeketh such to wor¬ 
ship him. God is a Spirit: and they that worship him 
must worship him in spirit and in truth.”* In this 
passage of our Lord’s discourse, there is an evident 
allusion to two separate and distinct systems of wor¬ 
ship, belonging to two different dispensations; and it 
is equally clear that the change was then about to 
take place from one of these to the other; that the 
one was about to be abolished—the other to be estab¬ 
lished. The system of worship about to be abolished, 
was that which the Jews were accustomed to practise 
at Jerusalem, and which the Samaritans had endea¬ 
vored to imitate on their favorite mountain. Now, 
every one w r ho is acquainted with the records of the 
Old Testament, must be aware that this was a system 


* John iv. 21— 24. 



8 ON THE DISUSE OF ALL TYPICAL RITES 

of worship chiefly consisting in outward ceremonies, 
in figurative or typical ordinances. The greatest 
nicety of divine direction accompanied the institution 
of these various rites, which were a “ figure for the time 
then present,” and which “stood only in meats and 
drinks, and divers washings, and carnal ordinances, 
* imposed,” on the Israelites “ until the time of reforma¬ 
tion.”* But now that time of reformation was at hand, 
and the law was pronounced by the great Mediator of 
the new covenant, that men were henceforward to wor¬ 
ship the Father in spirit and in truth. The new wor¬ 
ship which was thus to distinguish Christianity was 
to be in spirit; because it was to consist, not in out¬ 
ward rites of a formal and ceremonial nature, but in 
services dictated by the Spirit of the Lord, and in 
the direct communion of the soul with its Creator. It 
was to be in truth ; not simply as arising from a sin¬ 
cere heart—a description which might apply with 
equal force to the abolished worship of the Jews—but 
because it was to consist in substantial realities. It 
was to be carried on, not through the old medium of 
types and figures, but by the application to the heart 
of the great and essential truths of the gospel; for the 
type was now to be exchanged for the antitype, the 
figure for the thing figured, the shadow for the sub- 


* Heb. ix. 10. 


IN THE W0RS1ITP OF GOD. 


9 


stance.* Such then, and such only, is the true char¬ 
acter of Christian worship. 

We ought by no means to disparage the forms and 
ceremonies of the Jewish law, as connected with the 
covenant to which they appertained. We cannot for¬ 
get that this ministration of worship was appointed 
by the Almighty himself; nor can we refuse to ac¬ 
knowledge that it was, in its own time, glorious. For, 
although these ceremonies could not make him that 
did the service perfect, as pertaining to the conscience, 
yet was the whole system, of which they formed a 
part, perfectly adapted, by Divine Wisdom, to the 
condition of the Israelites; and the ritual law served 
a purpose of high importance to the ultimate promo¬ 
tion of the cause of righteousness. To that purpose 
we have already alluded: it was to typify, prefigure, 
and introduce, the better, purer, and more glorious min¬ 
istration of the gospel; for it is precisely in reference 
to these ceremonies, that the apostle describes the Jew¬ 
ish law as being “ a figure for the time then present 
and as “ having a shadow of good things to come.” f 

But, important as was the purpose thus answered by 

* A similar explanation of our Lord’s expressions, respecting 
Christian worship, will be found in the Commentaries of the 
following biblical critics:—Theophylact, Calvin, Jac. Cappel- 
lus, Grotius, RosenmUller, Whitby, Gill, Scott, and Doddridge, 
f Htb.ix. 9; x. 1. 


10 ON THE DISUSE OP ALL TYPICAL RITES 

the establishment and maintenance of the ceremonial 
law, it was one of a merely temporary nature. When 
the Messiah was come—when he had revealed the 
spiritual character of his own dispensation—when he 
had died for our sins—when he had risen again for 
our justification—when he had shed forth on his disci¬ 
ples the gifts and graces of the Holy Spirit—then 
were all the types fulfilled; then was the law of types 
abolished. “ There is verily,” saitli the apostle, “ a dis¬ 
annulling of the commandment going before for the 
weakness and unprofitableness thereof. For the law 
made nothing perfect, but the bringing in of a better 
hope did; by the which we draw nigh unto God.” * 
Again, “ Wherefore, when he cometh into the world, 
he saith, Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but 
a body hast thou prepared me: in burnt-offerings and 
(sacrifices) for sin thou hast had no pleasure. Then 
said I, Lo, I come (in the volume of the book it is 
written of me) to do thy will, O God. Above when he 
said, Sacrifice and offering and burnt-offerings and (of¬ 
fering) for sin thou wouldest not, neither hadst pleasure 
therein; which are offered by the law; then said he> 
Lo, I come to do thy will, 0 God. He taheth away the 
first that he may establish the second” f The system of 
types and sacrificial ordinances, therefore, being 


* Ileb. vii. 18, 19. 


f Heb. x. 5—9. 


IN THE WORSHIP OF GOD. 


11 


“ taken away,” and the spiritual system being, by the 
coming of Christ, established, we are no longer to 
worship the Father through the intervention of a hu¬ 
man priesthood, of formal ceremonies, or of typical 
institutions, but solely through the mediation of the 
High Priest of our profession, and under the immedi¬ 
ate and all-sufficient influences of the Holy Ghost. 
Although the shadows of the old law formed an es¬ 
sential part of the Jewish dispensation, they were no 
sooner imposed upon Christians than they became un¬ 
lawful, and assumed the character of an unrighteous 
bondage and of “beggarly elements.”* “Wherefore 
if ye be dead with Christ from the rudiments of the 
world,” says the apostle Paul to his Colossian converts, 
“why, as though living in the world, are ye subject to 
ordinances?” f 

Having thu3 endeavored to unfold the nature of that 
spiritual worship of God which the Lord Jesus en¬ 
joined on his followers, and to show how clearly it was 
distinguished from the old ceremonial worship prac¬ 
tised among the Jews, I may now take up the more 
particular consideration of the rites of Baptism and 
the Lord’s Supper. These rites have both received the 
name of “sacraments,” a word which properly signifies 
oaths, and formerly designated more especially the oaths 
of allegiance required of Roman soldiers; but which, 
*- Gal. iv. 9. f Col. ii. 20, comp. 14; Eph. ii. 14—16. 


12 ON THE DISUSE OF ALL TYPICAL RITES 


as applied to these religious ceremonies, may be con¬ 
sidered as denoting “sacred and binding ordinances.” 

It is imagined by many persons that the ordinances 
thus held as sacred in the church, are but little con¬ 
nected with those Jewish institutions which are, on all 
hands, allowed to have been abolished by the coming 
and sacrifice of the Messiah; that they are, on the 
contrary, (with the single exception of the baptism of 
John) of an origin exclusively Christian. On the 
supposition of the -correctness of this opinion, it is, 
nevertheless, undeniable, that these rites, as they are 
now observed, are of 'precisely the same nature as the 
ceremonies of the ancient Jews. They are actions in¬ 
different in themselves, employed as religious forms, 
and as a constituent part of a system of divine wor¬ 
ship ; and, like those Jewish ceremonies, they are 
mere types or shadows, representing, in a figurative 
manner, certain great particulars of Christian truth. 
It is clear, therefore, that the principle on which these 
practices are founded, appertains to the old covenant; 
and equally plain (in the opinion of Friends) that 
such practices do not consist with that spiritual wor¬ 
ship, which is described as so distinguishing a feature 
of the dispensation of the gospel. 

Although, however, the rites of Baptism and the 
Supper have been so generally adopted, as belonging 
to their own religious system, by the professors of faith 


IN THE WORSHIP OF GOD. 


13 


in Jesus, I cannot consider it true, in any accurate 
sense of the terms, that they are of Christian origin. 
On the contrary, there is every reason to believe that, 
before the coming of Christ, these practices actually 
formed a part of the customary Jewish ritual. 

First, with respect to baptism in water. It is notori¬ 
ous, that, according to the ceremonial law of the Jews, 
there could be no removal of uncleanness, no purifica¬ 
tion either of things or persons, without ablution in 
water. On various occasions the performance of that 
ceremony was appointed by the divine law: and, on 
many others, it was observed on the authority of Rab¬ 
binical tradition. Now, these “ divers washings,” to 
which the Jews were so much accustomed as a ritual 
means of purification, are, in the Greek Testament, de¬ 
scribed as baptisms ; * and it is certain that the principal 
of them were effected by dipping or immersion. Be¬ 
fore going into the temple- to minister or officiate, the 
priests of the Jews were accustomed to dip their whole 
body in water, and the house in which this ceremony 
was performed was called “the house of baptism.”! 
Persons of every description, who had contracted any 
bodily pollution, were strictly enjoined by the law to 
wash or bathe their flesh and the learned Jews deter- 

* Heb. ix. 10 ; Mark vii. 4; Luke xi. 38. 

f Cod. Joma. cap. 3, quoted by Hammond on Matt. iii. 

X See Lev. xv. 5, 8, 11. 


14 ON THE DISUSE OF ALL TYPICAL RITES 

mine that, if the least part of the surface of the body 
was not wetted by the dipping, the purification was in¬ 
complete. In the Greek original of the book of Eccle- 
siasticus, a person purified, after touching a dead body, 
is described as one dipped or baptized.* Judith, when 
on the point of performing an action which she erro¬ 
neously deemed to be of a highly religious nature, 
“ washed (or, as in the Greek, baptized ) herself in a 
fountain of water.”f Now, although the baptism 
practised by John and by the apostles did not, in all 
its circumstances, resemble those Jewish washings to 
which I have now adverted, yet it was precisely similar 
to them in that main particular of immersion in water, 
and, in all these instances, this immersion was typical 
of one and the same thing—that is to say, of a change 
from a condition of unclemness to one of purity. But 
the Jewish dipping, from which the baptism, first, of 
John, and afterwards, of the apostles, principally took 
its rise, and of which those baptisms may, indeed, be 
considered as mere instances, was the dipping on con¬ 
version. We read in the book of Exodus, that three 
days before the delivery of the law, “ the Lord said 
unto Moses, Go unto the people, and sanctify them to¬ 
day and to-morrow, and let them wash their clothes 
in pursuance of which command, we are afterwards in¬ 
formed that “ Moses went down from the mount unto 


* Chxp. xxxiv. 25. 


f Chap. xii. 7. 


IN THE WORSHIP OF GOD. 


15 


the people, and sanctified the people; and they washed 
their clothes.’’* * * § From the comparison of other similar 
passages, it appears probable that the washing of 
clothes here mentioned was a baptism or immersion in 
water of the whole body, together with the apparel.f 
Such is the express judgment of the Rabbinical writers, 
and they further declare that this baptism was com¬ 
manded and observed, on the principle that the Israel¬ 
ites were then about to be introduced to a new reli¬ 
gious covenant or dispensation—that, in other words, it 
was a baptism of conversion , to a purer and more excel¬ 
lent system of worship, faith, and conduct, than that 
to which they had hitherto been accustomed.J 

Hence, as it is declared by Maimonides and other 
Jewish writers, arose the baptism of proselytes, or of 
the Gentile converts to the religion of the Jews.g It 
was a principle well understood among that people, 
that as it was with the Israelite, so should it be with the 

* Exod. xix. 10, 14. 

f Compare Lev. xi. 25; xiv. 47; xv. 5, Ac. 

f Maimonides , Issure Biah, cap. 13. Lightfoot, Hor. Heb. in 
Matt. iii. 6. 

§ The proselytes were of two descriptions: proselytes of the 
gate , who forsook idolatry and worshipped the true God, but 
did not conform to the Jewish law; and proselytes of justice, 
who went further, and embraced the whole legal andceremon al 
system. It was the latter only who were baptized. 


16 ON THE DISUSE OF ALL TYPICAL RITES 


proselyte;* and, accordingly, as the Israelites had 
entered into their covenant by “circumcision, baptism 
and sacrifice,” the same introductory rites were con¬ 
sidered indispensable for every true convert to their 
religion.! 

Maimonides, who was a man of extraordinary sense 
and learning, and was deeply versed in the laws and 
customs of the ancient Jews, has stated a variety of 
particulars respecting the baptism of proselytes. It 
appears that, about three days after circumcision, the 

* See Numb. xv. 15. 

f According to the traditions of the Rabbins, circumcision, 
baptism, and sacrifice, were enjoined on every male, and the 
two latter on every female convert from heathenism to the 
Jewish faith. It was a trite axiom, as Lightfoot informs us, 
that no man could be a proselyte until he was circumcised and 
baptized. In the Babylonish Gemara (part of the Talmud) we 
find the following disputation: “ The proselyte who is circum¬ 
cised and not baptized, what are we to say of him ? Rabbi 
Eliezer says, Behold he is a proselyte; for so we find it was 
with our fathers, (the patriarchs) that they were circumcised 
and not baptized. He that is baptized and not circumcised, 
what are we to say of him ? Rabbi Joshua says, Behold, he is 
a proselyte; for so we find it is with females. But the wise men 
say, Is he baptized and not circumcised? oris ho circumcised 
and not baptized ? “He is no proselyte until he he circumcised 
and baptized.'* Jevamoth , fol. 46, 2. Lightfoot, Iior. Heb. in 
M itt. iii. 6. 


IN THE WORSHIP OF GOD. 


17 


convert to Judaism was conducted, during the day¬ 
time, to a confluence of waters, whether natural or 
artificial, sufficiently deep to admit of entire immersion. 
Having been placed in the water, he was instructed in 
various particulars of the Jewish law, by three scribes 
of learning and authority, who presided over the whole 
ceremony; and, when these doctors had received his 
promises of a faithful adherence to the Jewish institu¬ 
tions, and had fully satisfied themselves respecting his 
motives and condition of mind, he completed the im¬ 
mersion of his whole person, by dipping his head. He 
then ascended from the water, offered his sacrifice to 
the Lord, and was thenceforward considered as a com¬ 
plete Jew, and as a new or regenerate man* 

1 am aware that the existence of the rite of proselyte 
baptism, before the Christian era, is disputed by some 
of the learned, on the ground that such a rite is not 
specifically mentioned either in the Old Testament, or 
in the most ancient uninspired writings of the Jews; 
but this omission is very far from being sufficient to 
prove the negative; and the doubt which it occasions 
appears to be greatly outbalanced by positive evidences 
in favor of the antiquity of the practice. It seems 
necessary shortly to glance at these evidences. 

* Ismre Biah, cap. 13, 14. Wall on Infant Baptism, p. xliv. 

Selden de Syncdriis, Lb. i. cap. 3. 

2 


18 ON THE DISUSE OF ALL TYPICAL RITES 

1. The Jewish writers, who make mention of the 
baptism of proselytes, expressly describe it as an ordi¬ 
nance practised among their countrymen at a date 
long prior to the Christian era. Thus, it is said in the 
Talmud, that Jethro, the father-in-law of Moses, was 
baptized as a proselyte.* From Maimonides we learn 
that the baptism of proselytes was practised from age 
to age,f after the Israelites themselves had been admit¬ 
ted into their covenant in the days of Moses; and, 
again, he makes mention of the proselytes in the time 
of David and Solomon, as of persons who had been 
baptized. J 

2. There was a marked resemblance in several lead¬ 
ing particulars between the baptism of proselytes, as 
described in the Talmud and by Maimonides, and the 
baptism practised by John and the early teachers of 
Christianity. ' The baptism of the proselytes was a 
complete immersion, and was appointed to take place 
in a confluence of waters. The baptism of John and 
of the Christians is generally allowed to have been of 
the same character. John baptized “ in iEnon, near 
to Salim, because there was much water there and 
when the Ethiopian was to be baptized, we read that 
he and Philip went down or “ descended into the 

* Tract. Repudii , Hammond on Matt. ii. 

t nnnS 

J l88u e Biak , cap. 13. 


§ John iii. 23. 


IN THE WORSHIP OF GOD. 


19 


water/’ and afterwards that they 11 came up out of the 
water.” * It has, indeed, been remarked that, as the 
proselyte dipped his own head, he might be considered 
as baptizing himself, whereas the convert to Chris¬ 
tianity was baptized by some minister; and the disci¬ 
ples of John were baptized by that prophet. But the 
supposed difference in this respect is probably imagi¬ 
nary ; for, although the proselyte plunged his own head 
in conclusion of the rite, he might properly be described 
as being baptized by the persons who placed him in 
the water, and who arranged the whole ceremony. Ac¬ 
cordingly, I observe that the Jews speak of 11 baptizing' 1 
their proselytes, just as Christians make mention of 
“ baptizing ” their converts, f Again,—during the act 
of baptism, the proselyte was instructed, and made to 
stipulate for himself, by the scribes :X that the same 
circumstances now attend the rite of baptism, as prac¬ 
tised among Christians, is well known; and that they 
have been, from very early times, the accompaniments 

* Aots viii. 38, 39. 

f Even as they circumcise and baptize proselytes, so do they 
circumcise and baptize servants who are received from Gentiles, 
&g. Maim., Issure Biah , cap. 13. “ When a proselyte is re¬ 

ceived, he must be circumcised ; and when he is cured, they 
baptize him in the presence of two wise men,” <fcc. •Talmud 
Babyl. Mass. Jevamoth , fol. 47. 

f Seld n de Syned., lib. 1, cap. iii. p. 785. 


20 ON TIIE DISUSE OF ALL TYPICAL RITES 

of that ceremony, is generally allowed.* Again, when 
the proselyte was baptized, the rite was frequently ad¬ 
ministered, not only to himself, but to his family. So 
also it appears to have been with the early baptism of 
the Christians: we read, that Lydia was baptized with 
her household; that Paul baptized if the household of 
Stephanasand that, when the jailor at Philippi be¬ 
came convinced of the truth of Christianity, he and 
“all his” partook together of the same ceremony.f 
Again,—the proselyte, who had entered into covenant 
by circumcision, baptism, and sacrifice, was considered 
as a new man; or, to adopt the language of the Jews, 
as “a child new bornand of this new birth, or in¬ 
troduction to a better and purer faith, immersion in 
water was evidently used as the expressive s!gn. So it is 
notorious, that the genuine convert to the faith of 
Christ is ever represented, in the New Testament, as 
one regenerate, or born again; and baptism, as em¬ 
ployed by John and the apostles, was a figure of this 
regeneration. These points of resemblance between 
the Jewish proselyte baptism, and that of the Chris¬ 
tians, are so important and so striking, as to render it 
nearly indisputable that the one baptism was borrowed 
from the other. Since, therefore, it is altogether in- 

* See MacJcnight and others on 1 Pet. iii. 21. 

-j- Acts xvi. 15, 33 ,* 1 Cor. i. 16. Gcrmara Babyl. Chetub. 
cap. i. fol. 11, Ac. Wall , p.xlix. 


IN T11E WORSHIP OF GOD. 


21 


credible that the Jews should borrow one of their lead¬ 
ing ceremonies from the Christians whom they despised 
and hated, there can be little reasonable doubt that the 
baptism of John and the Christians was derived from 
the proselyte baptism of the Jews; and that, of course 
the latter was of a date prior to Christianity.* 

3. Our Saviour’s discourse with Nicodemus is con¬ 
sidered ( and I think with justice ) to contain an allu¬ 
sion to the baptism of proselytes; for he there de¬ 
scribes conversion under the figure of a second birth—a 
birth of “ water and of the Spirit.” Here there is a pre¬ 
cise accordance with the known Jewish doctrine re¬ 
specting proselytism; and, after having thus treated of 
that doctrine, and applied it in a spiritual sense, our 
Lord adverts to the want of intelligence displayed by 
Nicodemus on the subject, as to a surprising circum¬ 
stance : “ Art thou a master in Israel , and hnowest not 
these things ?” 

4. Although the baptism of proselytes is no where 
expressly mentioned in the Old Testament, it was the 
natural, and indeed necessary consequence of the 
admitted principle of the Jewish law that unclean per¬ 
sons of every description were to be purified by washing 
in water, and of the custom which so generally pre- 


* Gemara, Jevamot\ cap. iv. fol. 62, 1. Maim Is sure Biah r 
cap. 14; Wal 1 , p. lvii. 


22 ON THE DISUSE OP ALL TYPICAL RITES 


vailed among the ancient Jews, of effecting this wash¬ 
ing by immersion. On whatever occasion the rite of 
baptism was employed—whether as a preparation for 
religious service, or for the removal of uncleanness, or 
as a type of conversion to a holier faith—whether it 
was enjoined on the high priest, or on the leper, or on 
the proselyte from heathenism, or on the disciple of 
John, or on the convert of the apostles—it was, in all 
cases, a rite of purification. Thus we find, that the 
baptism of John excited a dispute between him and 
the Jews, on the subject of purifying :* thus Paul was 
exhorted by Ananias to be baptized (or, as in the 
Greek, to baptize himself) and to wash away his sins :f 
and thus, in apparent allusion (although in a spiritual 
sense) to the rite of baptism, the same apostle describes 
his own converts, as washed and sanctified , X &c. Now 
it is certain that, at the Christian era, the Jews con¬ 
sidered the Gentiles to be unclean persons, so that they 
were not permitted to associate with them, or to eat in 
their company. § Hence, therefore, it must have fol¬ 
lowed, as a matter of course, that no Gentile could be¬ 
come a Jew—could become clean himself, or fitted to 
unite with a clean people— without undergoing the rite 
of baptism. 

*John iii. 25. f Acts xxii. 16. 

X 1 Cor. vi. 11 : comp. Eph. v. 26, Heb. x. 22, &e. 

$ See Acts x. 28; comp. John iv. 9, <fcc. 


IN THE WORSHIP OP GOD. 


23 


Such are the positive evidences and plain reasons 
which appear to prove, in a very satisfactory manner, 
the antiquity of the Jewish rite of baptism on conversion , 
and which confirm the opinion of Hammond, Seldeu, 
Lightfoot, Wall, and other learned writers, that this 
ceremony was perfectly familiar toihe Jews, before the 
incarnation of our Lord. Accordingly, we may ob¬ 
serve that, when John ‘‘baptized in the wilderness, 
and preached the baptism of repentance (or conversion 
for the remission of sins,” his doctrine was very far 
from being strange or surprising to his hearers; nor 
did they evince the least difficulty in submitting them¬ 
selves to the ordinance. On the contraiy, multitudes 
pressed around him for the purpose : “ And there 

went out unto him,” says the evangelist, “ all the land 
of Judea, and they of Jerusalem, and were all baptized 
of him in the river of Jordan, confessing their sins.”* 
It was the office of the Baptist to proclaim the ap¬ 
proach of that heavenly kingdom—that purer dispen¬ 
sation—for which the pious among the Jews were so 
anxiously looking: and the faith, into the profession 
of which he baptized, was faith in the coming Messiah, 
the long expected Ruler of restored and renovated 
Israel. “John, verily,” said Paul, “baptized with the 
baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that 


* Mark i. 4, 5. 


24 ON THE DISUSE OF ALL TYPICAL RITES 

they should believe on him which should come after him , 
that is, on Christ Jesus.”* On the ground of his being 
either the Christ himself, or Elias, the expected fore¬ 
runner of the Christ, no objection could be taken to 
his baptism by the Pharisees who came to dispute with 
him; for, in either of these characters, he would be the 
authorized minister of a new and purer faith, and, as a 
matter of course a baptizer. It was because of the 
declaration of John, that he was not the Christ—that 
he was not Elias—that he was not that prophet—and 
for that reason only, that the Pharisees address the 
question to him, “ Why baptizest thou then ?”f 

And so it was also with the disciples of Jesus. As 
John baptized on conversion to a faith in the Messiah 
to come, so they baptized on conversion to a faith that 
Jesus was the Messiah. Both John and the apostles were 
engaged in the work of converting, in making disciples 
to a new system of faith and conduct, to a holier law, 
and to a more spiritual dispensation,—and, therefore, 
on a well known Jewish principle, and in conformity 
with a common Jewish practice, they respectively bap¬ 
tized their converts in water. 

Secondly, with respect to the “ Lord's Supper,” I 
conceive that, as it was observed by primitive Chris¬ 
tians, it could not justly be considered as a direct cere- 


* Aots xix. 4. 


f John i. 25. 


IN THE WORSHIP OF GOD. 


25 


monial ordinance. But, upon the supposition that the 
apostles and their companions, like more modern 
Christians, were accustomed to practise it only as a 
religious rite, and as a part of their system of divine 
worship, such an institution must be regarded as imme¬ 
diately connected with the Jewish Passover. The 
lamb eaten at the Passover, and the bread broken and 
wine poured forth in the Christian Eucharist, were 
equally intended as types; and they were types of the 
same event—the death and sacrifice of Christ. The 
two ceremonies, therefore, may be looked upon as the 
same in point of principle. But, it is more especially 
to our present purpose to remark, that the breaking of 
the bread, and the pouring forth of the wine, together 
with the blessing and giving of thanks, which distin¬ 
guish the ceremony of the Eucharist, actually formed 
a part of the ritual order, to which the ancient Jews 
were accustomed, in celebrating the supper of the Pass- 
over. This fact is sufficiently evident, from the narra¬ 
tions contained in the Gospels, of our Lord’s last 
paschal meal with his disciples ; and is fully substan¬ 
tiated on the authority of the Rabbinical writers, who 
in their minute statements respecting the right method 
of conducting that ceremonial Jewish supper, have ex¬ 
plicitly directed the observance of all these particulars.* 

* See Extracts from the Talmud and Maimonides, in Liyhtfoot. 
Hor. Heh . in Matt. xxiv. 


26 ON THE DISUSE OF ALL TYPICAL RITES 


Before we draw a conclusion from the facts now 
stated, it may be desirable briefly to review the former 
part of the argument. In explaining that great law of 
the new covenant, that God who is a Spirit, must be 
worshipped in spirit and in truth, we have adverted to 
the comparison so evidently instituted by Jesus Christ, 
when he pronounced the law in question, between the 
spiritual and substantial worship thus enjoined on his 
own followers, and that which was customary among 
the ancient Samaritans and Jews. The two systems 
of worship are described as completely distinct; the 
one was about to die away, the other to be established. 
The old worship consisted principally in the perform¬ 
ance of typical rites. The new worship was of a pre¬ 
cisely opposite character. The ordinance was to cease; 
the shadow was to be discontinued; the substance was 
to be enjoyed; and, in the total disuse of ancient cere¬ 
monial ordinances, communion was now to take place 
between the Father and the souls of his people, only 
through the mediation of Jesus Christ, and under the 
direct influences of the Spirit of truth. On the sup¬ 
position, therefore, that water-baptism and the Euchar¬ 
ist were not of Jewish origin, yet, being shadows and 
types, and nothing more, they perfectly resemble the 
ordinances of the law, and plainly appertain to the 
principle of the old covenant. But, further—on a fair 
examination of the history of these ceremonies, we find, 


IN THE WORSHIP OF GOD. 


27 


that they not only belong to the principle of the old 
covenant, but were practices observed on that principle 
by the Jews themselves, before the introduction of the 
Christian revelation. Thus, then, it appears that they 
actually formed a part of the ritual system of Judaism 
itself; and, since it is, on all hands, allowed that the 
whole of that ritual system, although observed for many 
years after the death of Jesus by most of his immediate 
disciples, is nevertheless null and void under the Chris¬ 
tian dispensation, we appear to be brought to a sound 
conclusion that in connexion with the worship of Chris¬ 
tians, the ceremonies in question are rightly disused . 

It-will scarcely be denied by any persons who are 
awakened to a sense of the spirituality of true religion, 
that in this view of the subject there is much which is 
reasonable, and consistent with the leading character¬ 
istics of Christianity. But, on the other hand, it is 
pleaded that the New Testament contains certain 
passages, in which the practice of these rites is not only 
justified, but enforced; and which, in fact, render such 
practice binding upon all the followers of Christ. 

In order to form a sound judgment whether this 
notion is correct or erroneous, it will be necessary for 
us to enter into a somewhat detailed examination of 
the passages in question, and of several others in which 
baptism and the dominical supper are either alluded 
to, or directly mentioned. Previously, lowever, to 


28 ON THE DISUSE OF ALL TYPICAL RITES 

entering on such, an examination, I may venture upon 
one general observation; namely, that if any such 
passages be found fairly to admit of either a literal or 
a spiritual interpretation, and if it be allowed ( as I 
think it must be, for the general reasons already stated) 
that the later is far more in harmony than the former 
with the nature of the Christian dispensation—in such 
case, we are justified, by the soundest laws of biblical 
criticism, in adopting the spiritual, and in dropping 
the literal interpretation. 

We may commence with Baptism. 

The first passage to be considered, in reference to 
this subject, is that in which the apostle John has de¬ 
scribed our Lord’s conversation with Nicodemus, on the 
doctrine of regeneration. “Verily, verily, I say unto 
thee, except a man be born again he cannot see the 

kingdom of God.”.“Verily, verily, I say 

unto thee, except a man be born of water and of the 
Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.” * I can¬ 
not deny that, when our Lord thus spake of being 
born of water, his words contained an allusion to the 
rite of purification. It has been already remarked, 
that the doctrine on which he thus insisted, in a spirit¬ 
ual sense, and respecting which he adverted so point¬ 
edly to the ignorance of Nicodemus, was one which, 


% John iii. 3—5. 



IN TIIE W0HSI1IP OF GOD. 


29 


in its merely external bearings, was perfectly familiar 
to the Jews. The proselyte-, who had forsaken hea¬ 
thenism, and adopted the Jewish religion, was consid¬ 
ered as one new-born ; and of this new birth his im¬ 
mersion in water appears to have been the appointed- 
sign. The new birth of the true Christian—that indis¬ 
pensable preparation for his entrance into the king¬ 
dom—is therefore fitly illustrated by the circumstances 
of the baptized proselyte. But, though it is sufficiently 
evident that our Lord alluded, in this passage, to the 
Jewish rite of baptism on conversion, it appears to be 
equally clear that he made that allusion in a merely 
figurative and spiritual sense. Those who would 
prove, that to “be born of water” in this passage, 
literally signifies to be outwardly baptized , defeat their 
own purposes by attempting to prove too much. If 
the possibility of an entrance into the kingdom of 
heaven, which a multitude of moral sins does not pre¬ 
clude, is precludedl^y the infraction of a merely posi¬ 
tive precept, and by the omission of a rite in itself in¬ 
different, it may almost be asserted that the system of 
Christianity is overturned, and that the gospel falls to 
the ground. To impose on an obscure and ambiguous 
expression a sense which thus contradicts so many 
general declarations made by the sacred writers, and 
which is directly opposed to the fundamental doctrines 
of the New Testament, is obviously very inconsistent 


30 ON TI1E DISUSE OF ALL TYPICAL RITES 


with the laws of a just and comprehensive criticism. 
Nothing, one would think, but absolute necessity, 
would compel any reasonable critic to the adoption of 
such an alternative. 

But, in point of fact, the expressions thus employed 
by Jesus are capable of being otherwise interpreted 
with the greatest propriety. Numerous passages 
might be adduced, from both the Old and New Testa¬ 
ment, in which the carnal washings or baptisms of 
the Jews are alluded to in a merely spiritual sense, 
and in which, more particularly, we find the grace of 
the Spirit—that sacred influence given to men for their 
conversion and sanctification — described under the 
figure of 11 water.” * According, therefore, to this 
known scriptural phraseology, “to be born of water,” 
may be properly understood as signifying to be con¬ 
verted, cleansed , and introduced to newness of life by 
the Spirit of God. Such is the interpretation of these 
words, which is adopted not only by Friends, but by 
various pious writers and commentators on Scripture, 
who have no connexion with that Society, f This 
interpretation is by no means precluded by the addi¬ 
tion—“awe? of the Spirit:” for our Lord’s words may 

*■ See Ps. li. 2, 7 ; Isa. i. 16; Jer. iv. 14; Ezek. xxxvi. 25; 
John iv. 10; vii. 38 ; 1 Cor. vi. 11; Eph. v. 26. 
f See Scott, A. Clark-, Gill, <Scc. 


IN THE WORSHIP OF GOD. 


31 


here be understood, not as relating to two things, but 
as representing one thing, first by means of a figure, 
and afterwards without that figure. Such a mode of 
expression is not unusual in the sacred writings. Just 
in the same manner the apostle Paul describes his 
own converts, first as “ washed ,” and immediately af¬ 
terwards as 11 sanctified” by the Spirit of God; * and 
when John the Baptist declared that Jesus, who was 
coming after him, should “ baptize with the Holy 
Ghost and with fire,” he probably employed both those 
terms to represent one internal and purifying influence. 

That spiritual interpretation of our Lord’s expres¬ 
sions which is thus plainly admissible, is moreover 
confirmed by the immediate context. Jesus says to 
Nicodemus, (according to the common English ver¬ 
sion), “Except a man be born again , he cannot see 
the kingdom of God;” and again he says, “Except 
a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot 
enter into the kingdom of God.” It is obvious that 
the latter of these sayings is nothing more than an 
explanatory repetition of the former, and that, in point 
of meaning, they are to be regarded as equivalent. 
Now from the comparison of the other passages in the 
writings of this apostle, in which the same adverb is 
used, it appears that the term rendered born again , 


* 1 Cor. vi. 11. 


32 


ON THE DISUSE OF ALL TYPICAL RITES 


although denoting that birth which was in fact a 
second one, ought rather to be rendered “ born from 
above .” * It follows, therefore, that to be “ born from 
above,” and “ to be born of water and the Spirit,” are 
expressions which have the same meaning. But “ to 
be born from above ” can surely signify nothing less 
than to undergo that true regeneration—that real 
change of heart—which is indeed “ from above ” be¬ 
cause it is effected only by the Spirit and power of the 
Almighty. Again, after speaking of this heavenly 
birth “ of water and the Spirit,” our Lord immediately 
drops his figurative allusion to water, and contrasts the 
moral change, of which alone he is speaking, with the 
birth of the flesh; “ That which is born of the flesh 
is flesh: and that which is born of the Spirit , is spirit .” f 

When the apostle Paul described the Corinthian 
Christians as persons who were “washed,” “sanctified, 
and justified, in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by 
the Spirit of our God;” and when, on another occa¬ 
sion, he made mention of the whole church as sancti¬ 
fied and cleansed “ with the washing of water by the 
word ;” t he probably derived his figurative language 
from the well-known Jewish custom of purification by 
water; and yet the impartial critic will scarcely deny 

'* John iii. 3, 31 ; xix. 11,. 23 ; comp. Matt, xxvii. 51; Mark 
xv. 38; James i. 17 ; iii. 15-17. So Schleusver in Lex. 
f J<|hn iii. 6. J Eph. v. 26. 


IN THE WORSHIP OF GOD. 


33 


that the doctrine which he couched under that lan¬ 
guage related solely to the operations of divine grace. 
The same remark applies to another passage in the 
writings of this apostle, which, vyhile it plainly illus¬ 
trates our Lord’s doctrine respecting a birth “ of water 
and of the Spirit,” affords additional information on 
the subject of true Christian baptism. “ For we our¬ 
selves also,” says the apostle to Titus, “were some¬ 
times foolish, disobedient, deceived, serving divers 
lusts and pleasures, living in malice and envy, hateful, 
and hating one another. But, after that the kindness 
and love of God our Saviour toward man appeared, 
not by works of righteousness which we have done , but 
according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of 
regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost , which he 
shed on us abundantly, through Jesus Christ our Sa¬ 
viour.” * Where is the enlightened Christian w 7 ho 
wdll refuse to allow that, under these expressions, the 
apostle is promulgating a doctrine entirely spiritual? 
The “ washing of regeneration ” which is here distin¬ 
guished from all our own works of righteousness, at¬ 
tributed solely to the merciful interposition of God 
our Saviour, and described as a divine operation , effec¬ 
tual for the salvation of souls, can surely be nothing 
else than the baptism of the Spirit, or. to adopt the 


3 


* Tit. iii. 3—6. 


34 ON THE DISUSE OF ALL TYPICAL RITES 

apostle’s own words of added explanation,—“ the renew¬ 
ing of the Holy Ghost” 

Another passage, of similar import, is found in the 
epistle to the Hebrews, which I deem to be rightly- 
ascribed to the same inspired author. Having, there¬ 
fore, boldness,” says the apostle, “ to enter into the 
holiest by the blood of Jesus, by a new and living way, 
which he hath consecrated for us, through the veil, 
that is to say, his flesh; and having a High Priest over 
the house of God; let us draw near with a true heart, 
in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled 
from an evil conscience, and our bodies ivashed with 
pure water.” * The “pure water” mentioned in this 
passage is explained by some critics as signifying the 
water of an outward baptism; but a little examination 
may serve to convince the candid inquirer that such an 
interpretation is inconsistent with the whole scope of 
the apostle’s argument. Every one who attentively 
peruses the ninth and tenth chapters of this admirable 
epistle, will observe that Paul is there unfolding the 
great doctrines of the Christian dispensation, as they 
were prefigured by the circumstances of the Jewish 
ceremonial law. The ritual appointed to be observed 
on the great day of atonement, as described in Lev. 
xvi., is that part of the Jewish institution to which he 


Chap. x. 19—22. 


IN THE WORSHIP OF £K>D. 


35 


is particularly adverting. On that day, the high priest 
was accustomed to enter into the holy of holies, or in¬ 
ner sanctuary of the temple, after a careful washing or 
bathing of his own body. After this purification he 
offered up a bullock and a goat, as an atonement for 
sin, and sprinkled the blood of the victims on the 
mercy-seat and on the altar. These and similar cere¬ 
monies (among which he particularly mentions “ di¬ 
vers baptisms”) are treated of by the apostles as de¬ 
noting the spiritual realities of the new covenant ; 
and when he proceeds to describe those realities, it is 
from the ordinances of Judaism that he borrows his 
figures. As the mercy-seat and the altar on the great 
day of atonement, and the people themselves on other 
occasions, were sprinkled with the blood of bulls and 
of goats, so are the hearts of Christians to be sprinkled 
from an evil conscience with the blood of Christ; and 
as the flesh of the priest, of the unclean person, or of 
the proselyte, was bathed in pure water, so is the natu¬ 
ral man to be cleansed and renewed by the purifying 
influence of the Holy Ghost. The “ sprinkling of the 
heart ” and the “ washing of the body ” are expres¬ 
sions equally metaphorical. The one denotes our de¬ 
liverance from guilt; the other our purification from 
sin. The one is the application of the sacrifice of 
Christ; the other is the baptism of his Spirit.* 

* So Calvin, Gill, and other commentators. 


36 ON THE DISUSE OP ALL TYPICAL RITES 

Such are the passages in the New Testament which 
contain indirect allusions to purification by water, and 
in which the circumstances of that rite are figuratively 
adverted to, in descriptions relating exclusively to the 
work of grace. We may now proceed to consider cer¬ 
tain other passages of the same general import, in 
which the verb “ baptize,” or the substantive “ bap¬ 
tism,” are actually introduced. In the passages al¬ 
ready cited, the baptism of the Spirit is represented 
by its characteristic circumstances. In those to which 
I am now about to invite the reader’s attention, it is 
called by its name ; it is described as a baptism. 

The first passages to be adduced, of this description, 
are those which contain the declarations of John, the 
forerunner of Jesus, respecting the baptism of the 
Messiah, as contrasted with his own ; one of these 
declarations is recorded by Matthew, Mark, and Luke, 
and the other by the apostle John. “ I indeed baptize 
you with water unto repentance,” cried the Baptist to 
the Pharisees and Sadducees, and to the whole multi¬ 
tude by whom he was surrounded; * “ but he that 
cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am 
not worthy to bear : he shall baptize you with the Holy 
Ghost, and with fire: whose fan is in his hand, and 
he will thoroughly purge his floor, and gather his 


* Comp. Luke iii. 16. 


IN THE WORSHIP OF GOD. 


37 


wheat into the garner ; but he will burn up the chaff 
with unquenchable fire.” * Luke has recited the 
Baptist’s declaration, in nearly the same words ; f and 
Mark records it simply as follows : “ John preached, 
saying, There cometh one mightier than I after me, the 
latchet of whose shoes I am not worthy to stoop down 
and unloose. I indeed hav& baptized you with water ; 
but he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost.” J The 
manner in which the baptism with fire , mentioned in 
Matt. iii. 11, and Luke iii. 16, is introduced to notice, 
in immediate connexion with that of the Holy Ghost, 
affords strong reason to believe that it represents the 
enlightening, cleansing, refining operation of the 
Spirit upon the hearts of men. One thing is described, 
as Grotius observed on Matt. iii. 11, by two different 
modes of expression—an observation which derives 
confirmation from Mark i. 8, in which passage the 
baptism ascribed to Christ, is only that “ with the 
Holy Ghost.” § The other declaration made by the 

* Matt. iii. 11, 12. f Chap. Iii. 16, 17. f Chap. i. 7, 8. 

§ Such is the view taken of the “ fiery baptism ” here men¬ 
tioned by many learned and able critics: for example, Mun¬ 
ster, Erasmus, Vatablus, Clarius, Lud. Cappellus, and Calvin. 
Grotius I have already mentioned: see Critic. Sacr. in loc. An 
excellent exposition of Matt. iii. 11, will be found in the well- 
known and justly valued commentaries of the late Thomas 
Scott. 


38 ON THE DISUSE OF ALL TYPICAL RITES 

Baptist to tlie same effect, is related by the apostle 
John, as follows: “^nd John bare record, saying, I 
saw the Spirit descending from heaven like a dove, 
and it abode upon him. And I knew him not: but 
he that sent me to baptize with water, the same said 
unto me, Upon whom thou shalt see the Spirit de¬ 
scending, and remaining on him, the same is he which 
baptizeth with the Holy Ghost. And I saw, and bare 
record that this is the Son of God.” * Such is the 
contrast drawn by John between his own baptism and 
that of Christ. The one is with water, merely exter¬ 
nal ; the other is with the Spirit and fire, internal and 
powerful. The one is the work of man, and, like the 
minister who practised it, is “ of the earth, earthly 
the other is divine , the work of the Son of God, who 
came from heaven, and “ is above all.” f 
A precisely similar comparison was afterwards made 
by our Saviour himself. When he was on the point 
of quitting this lower world, the sphere of his humilia¬ 
tion, and was about to shed forth upon his disciples, in 
freshness and abundance, the gifts and graces of the 
Holy Spirit, he commanded them not to depart from 
Jerusalem, but to wait there for the “ promise of the 
Father;” for '‘John truly,” said he, “ baptized with 
water ; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost not 


* Chap. i. 32—34. 


f John iii. 31. 


IN THE WORSHIP OF GOD. 39 

many days hence.”* Although the immediate disciples 
of Christ were endowed with a very unusual measure 
of the divine influence, it is always to be remembered 
that the promise of the Father was to all, in every age, 
who should truly believe in Jesus: f we may con¬ 
clude, therefore, that all, in every age, who should be¬ 
lieve in Jesus, were to receive, as well as the apostles 
themselves, the baptism of the Holy Ghost. Such, it 
is expressly declared, was the case with Cornelius and 
his family; £ and such, undoubtedly, must be the case 
with every Christian, whether more or less gifted , who 
is converted and sanctified by the influence of divine 
grace. Now, the general doctrine to be deduced 
from the declarations thu3 made both by the Baptist 
and by our Saviour, may be explicitly stated in a few 
words. It is, first, that the baptism which properly 
belonged to the dispensation of John, and which dis- 
tinguishei it from Christianity , was the baptism, with 
water ; and secondly, that the baptism which properly 
belongs to Christianity, and which distinguishes it 
from the dispensation of John, is the baptism of the 
Spirit. 

The baptism of the Spirit is expressly mentioned by 
the apostle Paul. When describing the union which 
subsists among all the living members of the church 


* Acts i. 5. f Acts ii. 39. 


X Acts xi. 15, 16. 


40 ON THE DISUSE OF ALL TYPICAL RITES 

of Christ, he writes as follows :—“ For as the body is 
one, and hath many members, and all the members of 
that one body, being many, are one body; so also is 
Christ. For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one 
body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be 
bond or free; and. have been all made to drink into 
one Spirit.” * Baptism with water, as adopted among 
the early Christians, was nothing more than a sign of 
that conversion which introduced into the church of 
Christ. The baptism of the Spirit, here mentioned by 
the apostle, is that powerful and divine operation, 
which really effects such an introduction, and by 
which, therefore, all the believers in Christ are brought 
together and united as fellow-members of the same 
body. 

Since this apostle has so frequently alluded to the 
work of the Spirit on the heart, under the figure of 
washing in water; f and since, in the passage now 
cited, he has plainly used the verb baptize in reference 
solely to that internal work, we are fully warranted in 
attributing to him a similar meaning on other occa¬ 
sions, when he makes use of the same verb, or its de¬ 
rivative substantive, in a manner somewhat less pre¬ 
cise and defined. The examples to which I allude are 

* 1 Cor. xii. 12,13. 

f As in 1 Cor. vi. 11; Eph. v. 26; Tit. iii. 5 ; Heb. x. 22. 


IN THE WORSHIP OP GOD. 


41 


as follows:—“Know ye not, that so many of us as 
were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his 
death ? Therefore we are buried with him by baptism 
into death : that, like as Christ was raised up from the 
dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also 
should walk in newness of life.” * “ In whom (that 
is, in Christ) ye are circumcised with the circumcision 
made without hands, in putting off the sins of the 
flesh by the circumcision of Christ: buried with him. 
in baptism , wherein also ye are risen with him through 
the faith of the operation of God who hath raised him 
from the dead.” f “ For as many of you as have been 
baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There is nei¬ 
ther Jew nor Greek, there i3 neither bond nor free, 
there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in 
Christ Jesus.” % That we are correct in the spiritual 
interpretation of these passages, they will severally be 
found, on examination, to afford a strong internal evi¬ 
dence. In Rom. vi. 4, baptism appears to be described 
as the efficacious means of our dying to sin and of our 
walking in newness of life. In Col. ii. 11, 12, to be 
buried with Christ by baptism, and to rise with him 
therein, are mentioned in immediate connexion, and 
apparently represented as the same with being spirit- 

* Rom. vi. 3, 4. f Col. ii. 11, 12. 

f Gal. iii. 27, 23 : comp. 1 Cor. xii. 12, 13. 


42 . ON TIIE DISUSE OF ALL TYPICAL RITES 

ually circumcised in putting off the body of the sins of 
the flesh; and it is moreover declared that the good 
effects of this baptism—this purifying influence—are 
produced in us by the faith of the operation of God. 
In Gal. iii. 27, those only are described as baptized 
into Christ, who have actually “ put on Christ,” * or 
who, in other words, are clothed with his righteous¬ 
ness, and are truly made one in him. Now, all these 
descriptions apply with the greatest accuracy to that 
baptism of the Spirit, to which Paul in other parts of 
his epistles has so frequently adverted; and they are 
as completely inapplicable to the outward rite of im¬ 
mersion in water. On a general view, therefore, of the 
passages in which the apostle makes any doctrinal al¬ 
lusion to this subject, we may fairly conclude that the 
only baptism of importance, in his view, was that of 
the Spirit; and that it was only to this inward woi*k 
that he intended to direct the attention of his readers, 
when he expressed himself as follows :—“ There is one 
body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one 
hope of your calling; one Lord, one faith, one 
baptism.” f 


* Comp . Rom. xiii. 14; Eph. iv. 24. 

f Eph. iv. 4, 5. There is one Lord, even Jesus Christ; 
one faith, even that of which he is the object; one bap¬ 
tism, even that of which he is the author; comp. Matt. iii. 11,12. 


IN THE WORSHIP OF GOD. 


43 


A very lucid declaration on the same subject may 
be found in the writings of the apostle Peter. After 
adverting to the events which happened in the days of 
Noah—“ while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, 
that is, eight souls, were saved by water ”—that apostle 
continues, “ The like figure whereunto, even baptism , 
doth also now save us (not the putting away of the 
filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience 
toward God) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ.”* 
The common English version of the first part of this 
verse is calculated to produce an erroneous impression 
of the apostle’s meaning. There is nothing in the 
original Greek which conveys the idea that Christian 
baptism is a “figure” The word rendered “the like 
figure” signifies, as is justly remarked by Schleusner, 
nothing more^than that which is similar or correspond¬ 
ing. So Archbishop Newcome renders the apostle’s 
words, “ And what answereth to this (even) baptism 
doth now save us.” I apprehend, however, that the 
Greek would be still more accurately rendered, “A 
corresponding baptism whereunto doth now save 
us.” f We are informed by the apostle Paul that the 
Israelites, who were led by the cloud, and passed 
through the sea, “ were all baptized unto Moses in the 


* 1 Pet. iii. 21. 

f <5 Kai iiixas avTiTvnov vvv <no£ei fSanTicrfia. 


44 ON THE DISUSE OF ALL TYPICAL RITES 


cloud and in the sea.” * On a similar principle, I 
conceive Peter to insinuate that Noah and his family, 
who were saved in the ark “ by water,” underwent a 
baptism of their own. By that baptism their natural 
lives were saved; and Christians enjoy a corresponding 
baptism which effects the salvation of their immortal 
souls. After drawing this comparison between the 
baptism of Noah, by which the life of the body was 
preserved, and the baptism of Christians, by which 
eternal life is secured for the soul, the apostle proceeds 
still further to determine his meaning by adding a 
definition, first, of that which this saving Christian 
baptism is not, and secondly, of that which it is. Ac¬ 
cordingly, he informs us that it is not the putting away 
of the filth of the flesh—or, in other words, not the 
washing of the body in water; and that it is the an¬ 
swer of a good conscience towards God. Now this 
answer of a good conscience is the result of a moral 
change, of a real regeneration. This is the baptism 
which the apostle here describes as distinguishing 
Christianity, and as saving the soul of the believer. 
Nor is it, like the baptism of water, the work of man. 
Peter expressly informs us that it is “ by the resurrec¬ 
tion of Jesus Christ.” It is effected by the power of 
that Saviour who is risen from the dead—“ who is gone 
into heaven, and is on the right hand of God; angels 

* 1 Cor. x. 2. 


IN THE WORSHIP OF GOD. 


45 


and authorities and powers being made subject unto 
him.”* 

* * * It is a satisfactory circumstance when we find persons 
who are wholly unconnected with Friends, and have probably 
but little knowledge either of the habits or principles of our 
Society, imbibing a truly spiritual view of Christian baptism. 
It has been my lot to meet with a few remarkable instances of 
this description in ministers of the Church of England; and a 
public example of the same kind is afforded us by Thomas 
Stratten, of Sunderland, the enlightened author of the “ Book 
of the Priesthood.” This author appears to have no hesitation 
in adopting a spiritual interpretation of many of the passages 
which have now been cited from the epistles of Paul and Peter, 
on the subject of Baptism. “ The minister of the gospel,” says 
he, “may baptize with water in the name of the Father, and of 
the Son, and of the Holy Ghost; but it is Christ’s own preroga¬ 
tive, which he exercises in answer to the prayer of those who 
c til upon him, to baptize with the Holy Ghost into his death, 
that being buried with him, by baptism, into death, we may 
also like him be raised up from the dead, to walk in newness 
of life:” see Rom. vi. 3, 4. Book of Priesthood, p. 198. 

The following passage, on the same subject, is very luminous : 
“We have found, in a quotation from the apostle Paul, a dis¬ 
tinction made between the circumcision which was outward in 
the flesh, and that which was inward in the heart: we have also 
noticed evident indications of a corresponding distinction in 
the case of baptism, the visible app’ication of water by the 
hand of man, and the invisible communication of the Holy 
Spirit’s grace from the hand of the exalted Redeemer. Tho 


46 ON THE DISUSE OF ALL TYPICAL RITES 


With the exception of Mark xvi. 16, (a text pre^ 
sently to be cited,) I believe we have now examined 
the whole of the passages in the New Testament which 

passage in which this distinction is most specifically made, and 
by which this part of our subject is brought into close connex¬ 
ion with the work of our atoning and interceding Priest, has 
yet to be adduced. The waters of the deluge once saved the 
feeble remnant of the righteous, sweeping away in their flood 
the hosts of the ungodly, by which they were encompassed, and 
raising them to a new life of security and separation from the 
wicked, in the ark into which they had retired. * The like fig¬ 
ure/ (says Peter) ‘whereunto even baptism doth also now save 
us, not the putting away of the filth of the flesh/ (that is, the 
outward affusion of water upon the flesh,) ‘but the answer of a 
good conscience toward God, by the resurrection of Jesus 
Christ, who is gone into heaven, and is on the right hand of 
God.’* The nature of that answer, and consequently of the 
baptism to which Peter refers, Paul illustrates, when surveying 
the marshalled legions of the Christian’s foes, he defies the 
power of the whole, and triumphantly declares the ground on 
which security is enjoyed: ‘Who shall lay anything to the 
charge of God's elect? It is God that justifieth. Who is he 
thit condemceth ? It is Christ that died, yea rather, that is 
risen again, who is even at the right hand of God, who also 
maketh intercession for us/ f The heart is sprinkled fr >m an 
evil conscience, that is, a conscience uneasy and disturbed by 


* 1 Pet. iii. 21, 22. 


t Rom. viii. 33, 34. 



IN THE WORSHIP OF GOD. 


47 


contain any doctrinal statement on the subject of bap¬ 
tism. Now, the reader will probably recollect that, in 
the epistle to the Hebrews, which contains so noble an 
exposition of the spirituality of the Christian religion, 
the “ doctrine of baptisms ” is mentioned as one of 
those rudiments of truth, which were familiar even to 
the babes in Christ. * Of the nature and principal 
features of that doctrjne, the information of which we 
are in possession respecting the old baptisms of the 
Jews, together with the several passages of the New 
Testament which have now been considered, will en¬ 
able us to form a sound and satisfactory estimate. 
Judging from the documents before me, I should say 
that this well-known “ doctrine of baptisms ” must 
have been nearly as follows. That, under the legal 
dispensation, “ divers carnal baptisms” were observed 
by the Jews as rites of purification ;f that among those 

a sense of its guilt before God, by the application of the blood 
of sprinkling, which speaketh better things than that of Abel. 
The answer of such a conscience is: I am safe, not becaisi I 
hive kept my baptismal vow, (for that no individual, who, 
either by his own lips, or by the lips of others appointed for 
him, has come under the obligation of a vow, has ever perfectly 
performed;) but I am safe, because Jesus died for my sins, and 
rose again for my justification; because I have fled for refuge 
to lay hold of the hope which is set before me in the gospe'; 

* Heb. v. 13, 14; vi. 2. f Ileb. ix. 10. 


48 ON THE DISUSE OF ALL TYPICAL RITES 


rites was numbered the baptism on conversion, a cere¬ 
mony to which the Israelites themselves submitted on 
their original entrance into the covenant of the law ;* 
and which was afterwards invariably practised in the 
admission of the proselytes of justice to the character 
and privileges of the native Jew;f that, under divine 
authority, this baptism on conversion was applied by 
John to the peculiar purposes of his own ministry; % 

because I am baptized by the power of his Spirit, applying to 
my conscience the blood which cleanseth from all sin. 

“This is the baptism, which, like the circumcision of the 
heart, rises so far in importance above ritual observances, that 
they may not with propriety be compared with it. Of the bap¬ 
tism which is administered by the hand of man, when compared 
with this, we may say, as the apostle did of circumcision, Nei¬ 
ther is that haj)ti8m which is outward on the flesh. Whatever 
instruction and encouragement may be afforded by its adminis¬ 
tration, it has in it no inherent efficacy; it conveys no graee, it 
is not essential to salvation. Tae things which accompany sal¬ 
vation work, ‘ that one and the self-same Spirit.’ ‘ For by one 
Spirit, we are all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or 
Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have all been made to 
driak into one spirit.’ * And this passage clearly and closely 
connects the subject with the interesting summary of essentials, 
which is given in another epistle written by the same apostle ; 

* Exod. xix. 14. f John iii. 5, 10. J John i. 32-34. 


* 1 Cor. xii. 13. 



IN T1IE WORSHIP OF GOD. 


40 


that these ancient Jewish baptisms were severally 
effected by washing or immersion in water; that they 
were all figures of another and a better baptism, by 
which Christianity was distinguished from every pre¬ 
paratory dispensation—a baptism of which Christ is 
the author, and his disciples, in every age and country, 
the objects ; that this true Christian baptism is applied 
not to the body, but to the soul, and is effected entirely 
by the power of the Holy Ghost; that by it we are 
regenerated or converted, sanctified and saved from 
sin; and, finally, that without it no man can find an 
entrance into the mansions of eternal glory. 

We cannot fail to observe, that the “doctrine of bap¬ 
tisms/’ as it is thus unfolded on the authority of Scrip¬ 
ture, perfectly consists with that great principle of the 
divine law, to w T hich, in the preceding part of this 
chapter, we have so particularly adverted ; namely that 

redeeming it from hands employed in ceremonies of human in¬ 
vention, by ’which it has been confused, perverted, and de¬ 
based, and presenting it in harmony with the vital principles 
of the gospel, which it has been our endeavor to unfold and es¬ 
tablish. ‘ There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are 
called in one hope of your calling; one Lord, one faith, one 
baptism ,’ (by the one Spirit into the one body,) ‘one God and 
Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you 
all.” * p. 205—208. 


4 


* Eph. iv. 4—6. 



50 ON THE DISUSE OF ALL TYPICAL RITES 

under the last or Christian dispensation, God is no 
longer to be worshipped through the old medium of 
ceremonies, shadows, and types, but in spirit and in 
truth. 

We may now proceed to consider another passage of 
the New Testament, in which it is very generally ima¬ 
gined that the practice of water-baptism is instituted 
as a Christian ordinance, and enjoined on the minis¬ 
ters of Christ. Matthew concludes his Gospel with the 
following narration of our Lord’s last address to his 
eleven apostles: “ And Jesus came and spake unto 

them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven 
and in earth. Go ye, therefore, and teach all nations, 
(or, as in the Greek, “ Going therefore, make disciples 
of all nations/’) baptizing them in ( or rather “into ”) 
the name of the Father , and of the Son , and of the Holy 
Ghost; teaching them to observe all things whatsoever 
I have commanded you : and, lo, I am with you alway, 
even unto the end of the world. Amen.”* 

That persons who have long been accustomed to re¬ 
gard water-baptism as sacred, should understand this 
passage as relating to it, is a circumstance which need 
not surprise us. Nevertheless, it ought to be observed 
that there is no mention made in the passage of water, 
or any thing whatsoever in the terms used, which ren- 


* Matt, xxviii. 18—20. 


IN THE WORSHIP OF GOD. 


51 


ders such literal interpretation imperative upon us. 
On the contrary, I am persuaded that an impartial 
consideration of the collateral points which throw light 
on the true meaning of our Lord’s injunction, will lead 
us to a very different view of that meaning. 

Jesus commands his apostles to make disciples of all 
nations; and, in executing that high commission, it 
was to be their duty, as we learn from his subsequent 
words, to baptize the persons whom they taught, into 
the name of the Father , and of the Son, and of the Holy 
Ghost. Now, the peculiar solemnity of that parting 
moment, and the apparent improbability that, on such 
an occasion, a merely external ceremony should be so 
prominently brought forward—the method so often 
employed by Jesus, of conveying instruction and pre¬ 
cept, concerning spiritual things, in words which bore 
an outward allusion to the flesh *—the frequent occur¬ 
rence of the terms “ baptize ” and “ baptism ” in the 
New Testament, and particularly in the discourses of 
Christ himself, in a sense purely metaphorical—the 
abolition, under the new dispensation, of the whole 
Jewish ritual, and the substitution of a spiritual wor¬ 
ship—the evidence derived from so many other explicit 
passages of Scripture, in favor of the doctrine that the 
baptism of Christianity is the work of the Spirit only 


* See, for example, John iv. 14, 32 j vii. 28. 


52 ON THE DISUSE OF ALL TYPICAL RITES 

—the pointed manner in which Jesus himself, in a 
preceding part, as is most probable, of this very con¬ 
versation, contrasted that powerful influence, which 
was the privilege of his own followers, with the water- 
baptism of John,*—all these are collateral circum¬ 
stances which bear, with no slight degree of force, on 
the passage before us, and which, when considered as 
a whole, appear to afford substantial evidence that the 
baptism here referred to by the Redeemer of men, was 
simply a spiritual baptism. 

It is, indeed, true that the baptism of the Spirit is 
elsewhere attributed to Christ himself. Undoubtedly 
it is a divine work; but, originating, as it ever must 
do, with our divine Master, this baptism might never¬ 
theless be administered by the instrumentality of his 
servants. In as much as the apostles of Jesus Christ 
were enabled, through the efficacy of an inspired 
ministry, to turn away their hearers from idolatry and 
other sins, to introduce them to a state of comparative 
purity, and to convert them to the true faith; in so 
much did they possess the power to baptize, in a spirit¬ 
ual sense, into the name of the Father, and of the Son, 
and of the Holy Ghost. It appears to be on the same 
principle that Christ is described by the apostle Paul 
as applying to his own church the baptism of the 


* Acts i. 5. 


IN THE WORSHIP OF GOD. 


53 


Spirit—as sanctifying and cleansing it “ with the wash¬ 
ing of water ”— ( by the word,” * that is, probably, by 
the ministry of the Gospel, f “ The preaching of the 
cross, ” when prompted and dictated by the Holy Spirit 
is often found to be “ the power of God.^J The min¬ 
isters of the Gospel ought, however, always to remem¬ 
ber that they can administer the baptism of the Spirit 
only through the power of their Lord and Saviour; 
and, in their humble efforts to perform so sacred a 
duty, they must derive their encouragement from that 
gracious promise—“ Lo, I am with you alway , even unto 
the end of the world” 

Upon the present point it only remains to be ob¬ 
served, that the observations now offered on Matthew 
xxviii. 19, 20, will be found to derive material support 
from the parallel passage in the Gospel of Mark ; “ Go 
ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every 
creature. He that believeth and is baptized shall be 
saved,” &c. § Here the baptism, to which our Lord is 
described as adverting, is classed with that faith which 
is essential to our salvation. It is the baptism which 

* The expression in the original Greek is not Myos, which 
sometimes signifies the essential Word of God, anlis applied as 
a title to the Son himself, but mna. 


f Eph. v. 26 ; comp. Rom. x. 17. J 1 Cor. i. 18. 
$ Mark xvd. 15, 16. 


54 ON THE DISUSE OF ALL TYPICAL RITES 

saves. Now, we are assured that the baptism which 
saves is “ not the putting away of the filth of the flesh ” 
or any work of righteousness which we can perform for 
ourselves;* it is that birth of water and the Spirit, 
which is “ from above,” and which prepares us 
for an entrance into the kingdom of heaven ;f it is 
“ the answer of a good conscience toward God, by the 
resurrection of Jesus Christit is “ the washing of 
regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost.”g 
On a review of the various passages cited in the 
present chapter, my readers will probably agree with 
me in the sentiment, that there is no part of the New 
Testament, in which the observance of baptism in 
water is either commanded or declared to be necessary. 
Such being the case, I know of nothing which remains 
to be pleaded in support of that ceremony as a part of 
the religious service of Christians, but the example of 
the apostles. That many of the apostles were accus¬ 
tomed, both before and after the ascension of Jesus, to 
baptize their converts in water, is indeed rendered in¬ 
disputable by certain passages in the Gospel of John 
and in the book of Acts. But this fact by no means 
affords any sufficient evidence that the practice of a 
similar rite is universally imperative on the ministers 
of Christianity. The spirituality of the new dispensa- 


* Tit. iii. 5. f John iii. 5. J 1 Pet. iii. 21. § Tit. iii. 5. 



IN THE WORSHIP OP GOD. 55 

tion—the great principle, that God was no longer to be 
served by the intervention of sacerdotal aud typical 
institutions, but only through the mediation of the Son 
and under the influence of the Holy Spirit, was very 
gradually unfolded to these servants of the Lord. It 
is notorious that many of them adhered with strictness 
to a great part of the Jewish ritual, long after it was 
abrogated by the death of Christ; and, even on the 
Gentile converts, they enjoined an abstinence from 
things strangled and from blood, (that is from the 
blood of animals,) no less imperatively than from the 
sin of fornication.* It is true that, after they had 
ceased to recommend circumcision to the Gentiles, they 
continued to baptize them in water. But the reason 
of this distinction is plain : namely, that circumcision 
was the sign of an entrance into the covenant of the 
law, but that baptism, although a Jewish practice, and 
observed on the principles of Judaism, was the type of 
conversion to Christianity itself, and was therefore, 
very naturally considered by the apostles as appropri¬ 
ate to the specific purposes of their own ministry. As 
long as they observed the ceremonies of Judaism in 
their own persons; as long as they continued unpre¬ 
pared for a full reception of the doctrine, that the 
ordinances and shadows of the law were now to be dis- 


* Acts xv. 29. 


56 ON THE DISUSE OP ALL TYPICAL RITES 

used, and that God was to be worshipped spiritually; 
so long would they, as a matter of course, persevere in 
the practice of baptizing their converts in water. 
Neither are we to imagine that, in this respect, the 
apostles acted in opposition to the will of their divine 
Master, who appears to have imposed upon them no 
sudden change of conduct respecting ritual observances 
but simply to have left them in possession of those 
great principles of spiritual religion, the tendency of 
which was to undermine these practices at the founda¬ 
tion, and thus, in a gradual manner, to effect their 
abolition. 

But there is another reason why the example of the 
earliest Christian teachers affords no valid evidence, 
that the practice of water-baptism is still incumbent on 
the ministers of the gospel of Christ—namely, that this 
example is not uniform. Its uniformity is known to 
have been interrupted by two exceptions of peculiar 
weight and importance. The exception which I shall 
first notice is that of the apostle Paul. That eminent 
individual—who was not “ a whit behind the chiefest 
apostles,” and who had formerly been a “Pharisee of 
the Pharisees,” and a zealot in the support of the Jew¬ 
ish law-—when he was once converted to the Christian 
faith, was the first to throw off the bondage of that law 
and he presently excelled his brethren in his views of 
the spirituality of the gospel dispensation. According- 


IN THE WORSHIP OP GOD. 


57 


ly, we find that baptism with water was, in his judg¬ 
ment, by no means indispensable, or inseparably con¬ 
nected with the duties of a Christian minister. Al¬ 
though it is probable that his converts were generally 
baptized in water, a large proportion of them received 
no such baptism at the hands of the apostle. He ex¬ 
pressly asserts that, among the whole multitude of the 
Corinthians who had been converted by his ministry, 
he baptized none save Crispus and Gaius, and the 
household of Stephanas.* It is not, however, merely 
the apostle's personal abstinence from the use of the 
rite which claims our attention in reference to the pre¬ 
sent argument: it is rather the ground and principle 
on which he declares that he abstained from it. The 
practice of this ceremony in the Christian church is 
supported chiefly by the generally received opinion 
that Christ commanded his apostles, when they made 
disciples of all nations, to baptize them with water ; 
and that from the apostles this duty has descended to 
all rightly-authorized ministers who, like them, are 
engaged in the promulgation of Christian truth. But 
Paul, highly favored as he was as a minister of the 
gospel, and engaged far more extensively than any of 
his brethren in the work of making disciples of all 
nations, abstained, to a very great extent, from the act 


* 1 Cor. i. 14—16. 


58 ON THE DISUSE OF ALL TYPICAL RITES 

of baptizing with water; and for this express reason 
—that he had received no commission to perform it :— 
“ For Christ,” said he, “ sent me not to baptize but to 
preacli the gospel.”* 

The other exception alluded to, is one of still greater 
moment: it is that of the divine Founder of our re¬ 
ligion. The Lord Jesus Christ rendered, in his own 
person, a complete obedience to all righteousness, as it 
was observed under the law; and therefore he sub¬ 
mitted to the baptism of John. But his own converts, 
who belonged to that spiritual institution which he so 
frequently denominates the “ kingdom of heaven,”f he 
baptized not. Although he permitted his disciples to 
practise that ceremony, he abstained from it himself. 
This fact is noticed by the apostle John, who, after 
stating that “ the Pharisees heard that Jesus made and 
baptized more disciples than John,” carefully adds, 
(for the prevention of error, no doubt, on so interesting 
a subject,) “though (or howbeit) Jesus himself baptized 
not, but his disciples.”J Those preachers of the gospel 
therefore, who consider it their duty, in conformity 
with the great fundamental law of Christian worship, 
to abstain from the practice of baptizing their converts 
in water, have the consolation to know that, in adopt¬ 
ing such a line of conduct, they are following the ex¬ 
ample of Him who afforded us a perfect pattern. 

* Ver. 17. j- See Matt. xi. 11, <fcc. J John iv. 1, 2. 


IN THE WORSHIP OF GOD. 


59 


Since, therefore, water-baptism was a Jewish cere¬ 
monial or typical observance; since, under the new dis¬ 
pensation, the plan of divine worship is changed, and 
all such observances are, by a general law, abolished; 
since, in precise conformity with that law, “the 
doctrine of baptisms,” as unfolded in various passages 
of the New Testament, appears to attribute to Christi¬ 
anity only the baptism of the Spirit; since that par¬ 
ticular passage in which the outward rite is supposed 
to be enjoined upon Christians may, with the truest 
critical propriety, be otherwise explained: and since 
the example of the first preachers of Christianity, in 
favour of that ceremony, arose out of peculiar circum¬ 
stances, and was interrupted by two overpowering ex¬ 
ceptions—I cannot but deem it undeniable that Friends 
are fully justified in their disuse of water-baptism. 


I may now proceed to the consideration of those 
parts of the New Testament which relate to the prac¬ 
tice called the Lord's Supper. 

In order to clear our ground respecting its nature 
and character, it is desirable, in the first place, to 
direct our attention to the tenth chapter of the First 
Epistle of Paul to the Corinthians—a chapter which 



60 ON THE DISUSE OF ALL TYPICAL RITES 

contains a remarkable allusion to the Lord’s Supper, as 
it was observed by the early Christians. It appears* 
that some of the Corinthian converts had so far sacri¬ 
ficed their religious consistency, as to join the banquets 
of their heathen neighbours, and to feast with them 
upon meats which had been previously offered to idols. 
Such was the unchristian practice which suggested to 
the apostle Paul the following reproof and exhorta¬ 
tion : “ I speak as to wise men; judge ye what I say. 

The cup of blessing which we bles3, (or for which we 
give thanks,) is it not a joint participation [Eng. Trans. 
“the communion”) of the blood of Christ? The 
bread which we break, is it not a joint participation 
[Eng.Trans, “the communion”) of the body of Christ? 
For we being many are one bread, and one body: for 
we are all partakers of that one ( or that same ) bread. 
Behold Israel after the flesh: are not they which eat 
of the sacrifices {joint) partakers of the altar? What 
say I then ? that the idol is any thing ? or that which 
is offered in sacrifice to idols is anything ? But I say 
that the things which the Gentiles sacrifice, they sacri¬ 
fice to devils, and not to God: and I would not that ye 
should be joint partakers in {Eng. Trans, “have fellow¬ 
ship with ”) devils. Ye cannot drink the cup of the 
Lord and the cup of devils : ye cannot be partakers of 
the Lord’s table and of the table of devils. Do we 
provoke the Lord to jealousy? Are we stronger than 


IN THE WORSHIP OF GOD. 


61 


he ?” * In reciting this passage, I have ventured upon 
some slight alteration of the common English version. 
The word “ communion ” is properly defined by Johnson 
“ a participation of something in common,” and this, 
no doubt, is the sense in which it was here employed 
by our translators. I have exchanged that word for 
“joint participation,” merely for the purpose of show¬ 
ing the manner in which the true meaning of the 
original expression,! as it is here applied, is fixed by 
the use, in two other parts of the same passage of the 
corresponding noun, rendered , joint partakers.% 

On a comparison with certain parts of the following 
chapter, (hereafter to be noticed,) it must, in all fair¬ 
ness, be allowed that the bread and wine, which the 
apostle here declares to be a “joint participation in the 
body and blood of Christ,” are those which were eaten 
and drunk, in a literal sense, at the supper called by 
the apostle himself, the Lord's Supper.% It appears, 
then, that those who ate and drank together of that 
bread and wine, were joint partakers of the body and 
blood of Christ, on the same principle, and in the same 
sense, that the Jews, who ate together of the sacrifices 
ordained by the law, were joint partakers of the altar; 
and the Christians, who united with idolaters in the 


* 1 Cor. x. 15—22. 

J KOM'ttfPOt. 


! Koivutvia.. 

% Chap. xi. 20. 


(32 ON THE DISUSE OP ALL TYPICAL RITES 

eating of meats offered to false gods, were joint par¬ 
takers with them in devils. It is plain, therefore, that 
the Christian communicants are not here represented 
as feeding on the body and blood of Christ; any more 
than the Jews are described as feeding on the altar; 
but only as jointly partaking in those things which 
had respect to the body and blood of Christ. 

I have entered into this examination of the passage 
before us, not so much for the purpose of disproving 
the Roman Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation, as 
in order to show that the apostle’s words give no real 
countenance to the notion, so generally entertained 
among Protestants, that those who rightly communi¬ 
cate in the rite of the Lord’s Supper do thereby feed to¬ 
gether , in a spiritual sense, on the body and blood of 
Christ. 

The declarations of this doctrine, unfounded as it ap¬ 
pears to be on the authority of Scripture, are in the 
communion service of the Church of England, both 
frequent and striking. The " sacrament of the Lord’s 
Supper” is there denominated a “ holy mystery ,” and a 
“ banquet of most heavenly foody Thanksgiving is en¬ 
joined unto God, “ for that he hath given his Son our 
Saviour Jesus Christ, not only to die for us, but also 
to be our spiritual food and sustenance in that holy 
sacrament;” and on another occasion, this service states 
that, when “ we receive that holy sacrament, then we 


IN THE WORSHIP OF GOD. 


63 


spiritually eat the flesh of Jesus Christ and 
drink his blood; then we dwell in Christ and 
Christ in us: we are one with Christ and Christ 
with us.” 

By such language a mystical importance is attached 
to the rite, which appears to have no foundation in its 
original use as a memorial of the death of Jesus. In 
these days of increasing light and spirituality, as we 
may justly esteem them, it is necessary to say but very 
little on this branch of our subject. Although Chris¬ 
tians, while they are partaking of the bread and wine, 
may sometimes be permitted to “ eat the flesh and 
drink the blood of the Son of man,” no arguments 
need now be advanced to prove that this spiritual eat¬ 
ing and drinking has no necessary or even peculiar 
connexion with any external ceremony; and that, in 
every time and place, it may be the privilege of the 
humble Christian, who lives by faith in the Son of 
God, and whose soul is subjected to the purifying, yet 
sustaining influence of his Holy Spirit.* Neither 
will it be any longer disputed that, when persons of 
such a character meet in companies for the solemn 
purpose of worshipping the Father, they may, without 
any use of the outward ordinance, feed together , in a 
spiritual sense , on the body and blood of Christy and 


*See John vi. 53, 58, 63. 


64 ON THE DISUSE OF ALL TYPICAL RITES 

experience the truest communion with their Holy 
Head, and one with another in Him.* 

Having premised these remarks on the apostle’s 
description of the Lord’s Supper, we may henceforward 
consider it in that more simple light in which alone I 
believe it to be regarded, in the present day, by many 
of those persons who observe it; namely, as an out¬ 
ward ceremony, constituting part of divine worship, 
and intended typically to represent, and thus to bring 
into remembrance, the death and sacrifice of Christ; 
and we may proceed to examine those passages of the 
New Testament which have given rise to the opinion 
so generally entertained, that such a rite was ordained 
by our Saviour, and that the practice of it is universally 
obligatory on believers in Christ. The passages to 
which I have to refer, under this head, are only two 
in number. The first is in the Gospel of Luke, who, 
in describing the last paschal supper which Jesus ate 
with his disciples shortly before his crucifixion, writes 
as follows: “And he (Jesus) took bread and gave 
thanks, and brake it, and gave unto them, saying, 
This is my body which is given for you : this do in re¬ 
membrance of me. Likewise, also, the cup after sup¬ 
per, saying, This cup is the new testament in my 
blood, which is shed for you.” f 
* See MaU. xviii. 20. 
f Luke xxii. 19, 20. 


IN THE WORSHIP OF GOD. 


65 


The second passage alluded to, contains a declaration 
of the apostle Paul, which fully confirms the particu¬ 
lars related by Luke. It appears that the Corinthian 
converts had so greatly abused the practice to which 
the injunction of Christ had given rise, that, when 
they met together for the purpose of eating the Lord’s 
Supper in company, there was found among them a 
total want of order and harmony; and many of them 
availed themselves of such occasions, for the intem¬ 
perate indulgence of their carnal appetites; “ For, in 
eating,” says the apostle, “ every one taketh before other 
his own supper; and one is hungry and another is 
drunken.” In order to correct habits of so disgraceful 
a character, Paul sharply reproves these Corinthians, 
and calls to their recollection the origin and object of 
the observance. “ For I have received of the Lord,” 
says he, “that which also I delivered unto you, That 
the Lord Jesus, the same night in which he was be¬ 
trayed, took bread: and when he had given thanks, he 
brake it, and said, Take, eat; this is my body, which 
is broken for you ; this do in remembrance of me. After 
the same manner also he took the cup, when he had 
supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my 
blood : this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance 
of me. For as often,” adds the apostle, “ as ye eat 
this bread, and drink this cup, ye do show the Lord’s 
death till he come. Wherefore whosoever shall eat 


66 ON THE DISUSE OF ALL TYPICAL RITES 


this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, 
shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. 
But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of 
that bread, and drink of that cup. For he that eateth 
and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh con¬ 
demnation to himself, not discerning the Lord’s 
body.” * 

It will be observed that, in this address to the Co¬ 
rinthians, the apostle is not enjoining upon them the 
practice of observing the Lord’s Supper. The passage 
contains no command of the apostle’s to that effect: it 
was intended solely to warn them against the abuse of 
that practice, and to explain to them its origin and true 
purpose. Accordingly, he briefly recites the circum¬ 
stances which had given rise to it. The knowledge of 
these circumstances, it appears, he had “ received of 
the Lordf and the apostle’s statement, founded on 
the instruction thus giveu to him on the subject, sub" 

* 1 Cor. xi. 23—29. 

j* For I have received of the Lord. ’Ey£> y &p n apiXafSov ano rov 
Kvpi'ov. That commentators are by no means unanimous in the 
opinion that an immediate revelation is here intended, will he 
sufficiently evinced by the following short abstract, given in 
Pool’s Synopsis, of the remarks made on this passage by certain 
eminent critics, and particularly by Beza. “It may be doubted 
whether the apostle learned these things mediately from those 
who were eye and ear witnesses, on the narration of the other 
apostles, or immediately by revelation. He learned them of 


IN THE WORSHIP OP GOD. 


67 


stantially accords with the narration of Luke. We 
are, therefore, to consider it as a fact resting on con¬ 
firmed evidence, that, when our Lord, at his last paschal 
supper, invited his disciples to take and eat the bread 
which he had broken, he added, “ This do in remem¬ 
brance of me:” and, further, we learn from the apostle 
that, after Jesus had handed to them the cup to drink, 
he repeated a similar command,—“ This do ye, as oft as 
ye drink it, in remembrance of me.” 

Persons who have been long habituated to associate 
these expressions of our Lord with the rite of the Eu¬ 
charist, as they themselves observe it, are naturally led to 
explain the former by the latter: and thus, with re¬ 
spect to the passages now quoted, they lose sight of 
those simple principles of interpretation, which they 
the Lord; that is, as proceeding from the Lord; the informa¬ 
tion being given to him by Ananias, or the other disciples, or 
else of the Lord by revelation. In] the latter case, however, he 
would not have said «vo, but nap'o, according to the usage of 
Greek authors in general, of the writers of the New Testament 
in particular, and more especially of Paul himself.” Other 
commentators understand the passage in a still more general 
sense, as implying only that the matters which Paul communi¬ 
cated to the Corinthians, respecting the Lord’s Supper, were no 
invention of his own, but rested on divine authority. So 
Camero and Calvin. Rosenmuller, one of the most able and im¬ 
partial of modern biblical critics, expresses a clear judgment 
that no direct revelation was here alluded to by the apostle ; 
Vide Schol. in N. T. in loc. 


68 ON THE DISUSE OF ALL TYPICAL RITES 


would, of course, apply to any other part of the sa¬ 
cred volume. I confess I see no other way of account¬ 
ing for the sentiment, still so prevalent among Chris¬ 
tians, that when our Lord, after partaking with his 
disciples in the Passover supper, said to them, “ Do 
this in remembrance of me,” he instituted a religious 
ceremony, which was thenceforward to form an essen¬ 
tial part of worship ; and which, in that point of view, 
was to he binding in all ages, on the believers in Jesus, 
That the words of Christ, when tried by the test of 
common rules, and explained by the circumstances un¬ 
der which they were spoken, do not appear, and cannot 
be proved, to have been fraught with so extensive a mean¬ 
ing, will probably be allowed by the candid and con¬ 
siderate critic; and I would suggest that no such 
meaning can justly be applied to them, for two reasons. 

That our Lord’s words, in the first place, are not 
rightly interpreted as relating to a typical ceremony in 
connexion with Christian worship, there arises a strong 
presumption, on this general ground—that such an in¬ 
terpretation is directly at variance with the acknow¬ 
ledged fact, that the old Jewish system of types was 
then about to be abrogated by the death of Christ ; 
and with our Saviour’s own law, that the Father was 
now to be worshipped, not according to the shadowy 
ritual of the Jews and Samaritans, but in spirit and in 
truth. 


IN THE WORSHIP OF GOD. 


69 


Secondly, it is to be observed that the command of 
Jesus respecting the bread and wine was addressed 
only to twelve persons, and was of a nature simply 
positive. It is true that all the precepts of Jesus were 
addressed to those persons who were in his company 
at the time when they were uttered, and many of them 
probably to his apostles only; but there is an excel¬ 
lent reason why the bulk of them are to be received 
as of universal obligation—namely, that they are 
moral in their nature, and belong to that unchangeable 
law of God, which, when revealed, demands the obe¬ 
dience of all men at all times. But a merely positive 
precept has no connexion with that unchangeable law, 
and does nothing more than enjoin, for some specific 
purpose, a practice in itself indifferent. Such a pre¬ 
cept, therefore, appears to contain no sufficient internal 
evidence of its being binding on any persons, except 
those to whom it was actually addressed, and others 
who were placed under the same peculiar circum¬ 
stances. I would suggest that a universal obligation, 
on the followers of any moral lawgiver, to obey a pre¬ 
cept of the nature now described, cannot be rightly 
admitted, unless it be by such lawgiver expressly de¬ 
clared ; and that its not being so declared, affords an 
indication that no such universality was intended. 

The present argument may be fitly illustrated by 
another example of a similar nature. On the very 


70 ON THE DISUSE OF ALL TYPICAL RITES 


same affecting occasion, when Jesus directed his apos¬ 
tles to observe the practice now under consideration, 
he also enjoined them to wash one another’s feet. We 
read in the Gospel of John that, after that last paschal 
supper, Jesus rose from the table, took a towel, girded 
himself, poured water into a basin, and " began to 
wash his disciples’ feet, and to wipe them with the 
towel wherewith he was girded.” After thus evincing 
the lowliness of his mind, he said to his disciples, 
“Know ye what I have done unto you ? Ye call me 
Master and Lord, and ye say well; for so I am. If I 
then, your Lord and Master, have washed your feet, 
ye ought also to wash one another’s feet; for I have 
given you an example , that ye should do as I have done 
to you.” Here was an injunction conveyed to the 
apostles in words fully as explicit, and with accompa¬ 
niments equally striking, as was the preceding com¬ 
mand respecting the bread and wine. Yet, since that 
injunction was simply positive, relating to an act of 
no moral importance in itself, and one which was con¬ 
nected with the peculiar habits of the persons thus 
addressed—no one supposes that an obedience to such 
an injunction is necessary for Christians of every age 
and country. Undoubtedly, that mutual respect and 
benevolence, of which the washing of one another’s 
feet was thus enjoined on some- of his servants as an 
instance and a sign, is incumbent on all the followers 


IN THE WORSHIP OF GOD. 


71 


of Jesus. Universally incumbent upon them, also, is 
that love and allegiance towards their Saviour, and 
that dependence upon his atoning death, which the 
apostles were accustomed to express by their com¬ 
memorative supper. But, in both cases, according to 
the view of Friends on the subject, the outward cir¬ 
cumstance may be omitted, without any infraction of 
the revealed will of God. 

In confirmation of these arguments, the reader’s 
attention may now be called to a very striking fact; 
namely, that, in the Gospel of Matthew, which was 
written by an eye-witness, and at an earlier date 
than that of Luke, and which contains a very exact 
description of our Lord’s last supper with his-disci- 
ples, of the breaking of the bread, of the handing of 
the cup, and of the comparison made by Jesus of the 
one with his body and of the other with his blood; 
the words upon which alone could have been founded 
the institution of this supposed Christian rite —“ Do 
this in remembrance of me ”—are omitted. We are 
not to conclude from this omission that those words 
were not spoken. That they were spoken, on the 
contrary, is certain, on the authority of both Luke 
and Paul. But, since Matthew describes all the cir¬ 
cumstances of the occasion, and gives the whole of 
our Lord’s address, with the single exception of these 
words, we can hardly suppose him to have understood 


72 ON THE DISUSE OF ALL TYPICAL RITES 

that the precept of Jesus was of that very leading 
importance which is generally imagined ; or, that our 
Lord then instituted a rite which was, in every age of 
the church, to form an essential part of Christian 
worship. Precisely the same observation applies to 
the Gospel of Mark, which is -supposed to have been 
written under the immediate superintendence of the 
apostle Peter. 

What then may be deemed a fair and reasonable 
interpretation of our Lord’s very simple precept ? and 
in what signification would the twelve apostles, to 
whom these words were addressed, naturally under¬ 
stand them ? In order to give a satisfactory answer 
to this inquiry, we may, in the first instance, observe 
that the apostles were all Jews or Galileans ; that 
they had long been accustomed to observe the rites 
of the supper of the Passover, and that among those 
rites were numbered (as has been already stated) the 
breaking of the bread, and the handing of the cup, 
with the blessing and giving of thanks. As they had 
already been habituated to these customs, so was the 
Lord Jesus well aware that they would still maintain 
them : for, as it has been already remarked, the apos¬ 
tles continued in the practice of parts of the Jewish 
ritual, long after the crucifixion of our Lord ; and, 
although that ritual was abolished by his death, the 
sudden disuse of it does not appear to have been 


IN THE WORSHIP OF GOD. 


73 


enjoined upon them by their divine Master. Having 
these facts in our view, we may reasonably interpret 
the words of Jesus as commanding nothing more than 
that his apostles should call him to their recollection 
when they met to celebrate the supper of the Passover. 
“ This cup/’ said Jesus, “ is the new testament in my 
blood.” Now, it was not every cup of wine which 
represented the new testament in the blood of Christ; 
it was the cup of wine drunk at the supper of the 
Passover—an institution which they were then cele¬ 
brating, and which, in some of its circumstances, was 
expressly typical of the death of the Messiah. It 
appears, then, by no means very improbable that it 
was to the cup of the Passover exclusively that our 
Saviour’s injunction applied—“ This do ye, as oft as ye 
drink it, in remembrance of me that is, as often as 
ye meet together to celebrate the supper of the Pass- 
over, and to drink of that cup, which represents the 
new testament in my blood, take care that ye forget 
not the true purport of the ceremony—do it in remem¬ 
brance of me. 

Such appears to be an easy and natural interpreta¬ 
tion of our Lord’s words. Nevertheless, it cannot be 
denied that they are capable of a sense somewhat 
more extensive. Although the breaking of the bread, 
the handing of the wine, &c., formed a part of the 
Jewish ceremonial order of the Passover supper, there 


74 ON THE DISUSE OF ALL TYPICAL RITES 

is reason to believe that a similar method was ob¬ 
served in those more common meals, of which the 
Jews were accustomed to partake in one another’s 
company. Thus, when Jesus, on a subsequent occa¬ 
sion, “ sat at meat ” with the two disciples at Emmaus, 
we again find him blessing, breaking and distributing 
the bread ;* and when Paul had induced his compa¬ 
nions, on the voyage, to unite with him taking the 
needful food, we read that “ he took bread, and gave 
thanks to God in the presence of them all: and when 
he had broken it, he began to eat.”f Such being the 
common practice of the Jews, it is very probable that 
the apostles might understand our Lord’s injunction 
as not confined to the Passover supper, but as extend¬ 
ing to other more familiar occasions, when they might 
be gathered together to partake of a common meal. 
On these occasions, as well as at the Passover supper, 
they might consider it a duty laid upon them by their 
beloved Master, to break their bread, and to drink of 
their cup, not only for the satisfaction of their natural 
appetites, but in commemoration of the body which 
was broken, and of the blood which was shed, for 
their sakes. 

That the Lord Jesus was thus understood by some 




* Luke xxiv. 30. 


f Acts xxvii.35. 


IN TITE WORSHIP OF GOD. 


75 


of his hearers, may be collected from the known prac¬ 
tice of the church, at the very earliest period of its 
history. Of those numerous persons who were con¬ 
verted by means of the ministry of Peter, on the 
day of Pentecost, we read that “ they continued stead¬ 
fastly in the apostles’ doctrine and fellowship, and 
in breaking of bread, and in prayers.”* Since the 
“ breaking of bread ” is here mentioned among other 
signs of religious communion, it probably signifies 
(according to the general opinion of biblical critics) 
that breaking of bread which was introduced as a 
memorial of the death of Christ. Nevertheless, that 
the practice in question was observed as a part of the 
social meal, is evident from the immediate context. 
“ And all that believed,” adds the historian, “ were 
together, and had all things common .... and they, 
continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and 
breaking bread from house to house , did eat their meat 
with gladness and singleness of heart” f On another 
occasion, when we are informed that, “on the first 
day of the week,” the disciples at Troas “came to¬ 
gether to break bread ;”J there is no reason to sup¬ 
pose that they met for the purpose of performing 
a religious ceremony. It appears, rather, that they 
came together to partake of a brotherly repast, of 


* Acts ii. 42. 


f Vers. 44, 46. 


J Acts xx. 7. 


76 ON THE DISUSE OE ALL TYPICAL RITES 

which it is probable that one particular object was 
the joint commemoration of the death of their Lord. 
After Paul had taken the opportunity, afforded him 
by this meeting, of preaching at length to the dis¬ 
ciples, it is obvious that he brake bread with them for 
the refreshment of his body, and for the satisfaction 
of the demands of nature. “ When, he, therefore, 
was come up again,” says Luke, “and had broken bread, 
and eaten , and talked a long while, even till break of 
day, so he departed.”* 

Lastly, the same fact is evident from the description 
given by Paul of the abuses which had crept in amon g 
his Corinthian converts in their method of conducting 
these common repasts. “When ye come together, 
therefore, into one place, this is not to eat the Lord’s 
supper. For, in eating, every one taketh before other 
his own supper ; and one is hungry, and another is 
drunken. What ? have ye not houses to eat and to 
drink in? or despise ye the church (or assembly) of 
God, and shame them that have not? What shall I 
say to you? shall I praise you in this? I praise you 
not.” f After thus reproving them, and after explain¬ 
ing to them, in a passage already cited, the origin and 
true object of the observance which they had thus 
abused, the apostle, zealous as he was for the right 


* Yer. 11. 


f 1 Cor. xi. 20—22. 


IN THE WORSHIP OF GOD. 


77 


order of this Christian meal, concludes with the fol¬ 
lowing exhortation: “ Wherefore, my brethren, when 
ye come together to eat, tarry one for another; and if 
any man hunger,* let him eat at home, that ye come 
not together unto condemnation.” 

The supper, which the apostle here describes as the 
Lord’s Supper, which the Corinthians had so shame¬ 
fully misconducted, and during the course of which 
the bread was broken, and the wine handed about, in 
commemoration of the death of Christ, was probably 
the same as was otherwise called “ love,” or the “ sup¬ 
per of love.” “ Their coming together,” says Theo- 
phylact, on 1 Cor. xi. 20, (or rather Chrysostom, from 
whom his commentaries were borrowed,) “ was in¬ 
tended as a sign of love and fellowship ; and he deno¬ 
minates this social banquet the Lord's Supper, because it 
was the imitation of that awful supper which the Lord 
ate with his disciples.”! These suppers of love, or 
11 love-feasts,” are alluded to by the apostles Peter,! 
and Jude ; l and are described by Pliny,|| as well as 


# Vide Grotii C>mm. in loc. a Est x^i/a<r/u.bs (irriaio acerba)'. 
Loquitur enim tanquam pueris qui ita solent esse o£vjreivoi 
( famelici) ut quidvis arripiant, nec alios ad partem vocent, 
neque velint cviea peptCeiv (Jtcv8 partiri)." 

fSo Grotius, Estius, Justinian, and others—see Poli Synopsis. 
! 2 Pet. ii. 13. # Ver. 12. II Epifa. lib. x. 97. 


78 ON THE DISUSE OF ALL TYPICAL RITES 


by Tertullian * and other early fathers.! It appears 
that they were frugal public repasts, of which the poor 
and the rich, in the early Christian churches, partook 
together, and which were regarded both as the symbols 
and pledges of brotherly love. Such, then, was the 
“ Lord’s Supper ” of the primitive Christians ; such 
were the occasions on which they were accustomed to 
break their bread, and drink their wine, as a memorial 
of the body and blood of Christ.! 

* Apol. adv. Gentes, cap. 39. 

f Clem. Alex. Pied. lib. ii. cap. 1, Constit. Apostol. lib. ii. cap. 
28, &c. 

f Vide Schleusner Lex , in loc ayanrj No. 7. “ ’A-yan-ai agapse, 

(love-feasts,) fuerunt convivia publica in conventibus Christian- 
orum sacris instituta, conjuncta in primitiva et apostolica ec- 
clesia cum celebratione festiva coense Dominicae, ita dicta quod 
Christiana) charitatis symbola essent et tesserae,” <fcc. The 
celebration of the Eucharist, and that of the love-feast, appear 
to be mentioned by Ignatius (A. D. 101) as identical. “ Let 
that be considered,” says the ancient father, “ a valid Eucharist 
■which is under the care of a bishop, and in which he takes a 
part. Where the bishop appears, there let the people attend. 
It is unlawful either to baptize or to celebrate the love-feast 
without the bishop.” Ep. ad. Smyrn. ck. 8. So we are in¬ 
formed by Tertullian, (A. D. 200,) that, even in his day, the 
Eucharist was received by Christians in connexion with their 
meals: “ Eucharistiaa sacramentum et in tempore victus, et 
omnibus mandatum a Domino, etiam antelucanis coetibus, nec 


IN THE WORSHIP OF GOD. 


79 


To the simple practice which thus prevailed among 
these primitive Christians (if preserved within proper 
bounds) there appears to be nothing which can fairly 
be objected. It was a practice which might be classed 
rather under the head of pious customs than under 
that of direct religious ceremonies. It was, perhaps, 
little more than giving to one of the common occa¬ 
sions of life a specific direction of an edifying charac¬ 
ter ; and, under the peculiar circumstances of these 
early disciples, it might be considered no inconsistent 
result of that general law, that, whether we eat or 
drink, or whatsoever we do, all is to be done to the 
glory of God, and in the name of the Lord Jesus. But, 
appropriate as these feasts of charity might be to the 
condition of the infant church, when the believers 
were comparatively few in number, and in a consider¬ 
able degree possessed all things in common, they 
would evidently be much less adapted for the use of 
those vast multitudes of persons, very slightly con¬ 
nected with each other, who profess Christianity in 
modern times. As the numbers increased in any 
church, who would, as members of it, possess a right 
to attend the love-feasts, there would necessarily arise 
a great danger of abuse in such a practice; and that 

de aliorum manu quaru praesidentium sumimus.” De Coron. 
Milit. cap. 3, Ed. Semleri , iv. 341. See also Orotius and Whitby 
on 1 Cor. x. & xi. 


80’ ON THE DISUSE OP ALL TYPICAL RITES 

this abuse actually took place in the church of Corinth 
to an alarming and disgraceful degree, we have already 
noticed on the authority of the apostle Paul. 

On the one hand, therefore, we may allow that those 
persons who continue the observance of the Lord’s 
Supper, not as a religious ceremony constituting a ne¬ 
cessary part of divine worship, but on the simple system 
of the primitive Christians , are not without their war¬ 
rant, for the adoption of such a course. On the other 
hand, it is no less evident that the apparent unsuita¬ 
bleness of the custom to the present condition of the 
visible church, its known liability to abuse, and more 
especially, its close affinity with the abolished ritual of 
the Jews, appear to afford sufficient reasons for its 
discontinuance. 

That there is nothing in the history of the origin 
of that custom which precludes, under so obvious a 
change of circumstances, the liberty of its disuse , the 
reader will probably allow, for reasons already stated. 
Here, however, it appears necessary to notice an 
expression of the apostle Paul’s, from which many 
persons have derived an opinion that this practice is 
binding on believers in Jesus, until the end of the 
world. “For as oft as ye eat this bread, and drink 
this cup,” says the apostle, in a passage already cited, 
^ ye do show the Lord's death till he corned The infer¬ 
ence deduced from these words respecting the necessary 


IN THE WORSHIP OF GOD. 


81 


permanence of the rite of the Lord’s Supper appears 
to be ill-founded. For, in the first place, they contain 
no command to the Corinthians to continue the practice 
in question until the Lord’s coming: and in the second 
place, it is evident, from the context, that it was not 
here the apostle’s object to impress upon his friends 
the duration of the custom, but rather its meaning or 
direction. The stress of his declaration plainly lies 
upon the words, “ Ye do show the Lord’s death.” The 
words " till he come ” appear to be added, as a kind of 
reservation, for the purpose of conveying the idea that, 
when the Lord himself should come, such a memorial 
of his death would be obsolete and unnecessary. It is 
the belief of Friends that the principle on which this 
reservation is made, substantially agrees with their own 
sentiment, that the spiritual presence of the Lord 
Jesus Avith his disciples, and the direct communion 
with him, which they are even now permitted to enjoy, 
virtually abrogate any practice in his service, which is 
of a merely symbolical character. 

The view now taken of the apostle’s doctrine will 
fitly introduce a closing remark—that, while Friends 
consider it to be their duty to abstain from that ritual 
participation in bread and wine, so usually observed 
among their fellow Christians, there are no persons 
who insist more strongly than they do on that which they 

deem to be the only'needful supper of the Lord. That 
6 


82 ON THE DISUSE OF ALL TYPICAL RITES 

supper, according to their apprehension, is of a spirit¬ 
ual nature. Now, it is a circumstance which strongly 
confirms this general view, that our Lord availed 
himself of the very occasion which has given rise 
among Christians to the rite of the Eucharist, in order 
to direct the attention of his disciples to the supper 
now alluded to—a repast of a totally different descrip¬ 
tion, and one which may be enjoyed by the disciples 
of Christ independently of every outward ordinance. 
“With desire I have desired,” said Jesus to his apos¬ 
tles, “ to eat this Passover with you before I suffer; for 
Isay unto you , I will not any more eat thereof ’ until it 
be fulfilled in the kingdom of God.” * Again, “ This is 
my blood of the new testament, which is shed for 
many, for the remission of sins. But I say unto you , 
I will not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine , until 
that day when I drink it new with you in my Father’s 
kingdom.” f Again, “ Ye are they which have con¬ 
tinued with me in my temptations. And I appoint 
unto you a kingdom, as my Father hath appointed 
unto me; that ye may eat and drink at my table in my 
kingdom.” \ 

We may, indeed, believe that these gracious decla¬ 
rations are accomplished in all their fullness . only in the 
heavenly state of happiness and glory; but it is 
sufficiently evident, and is allowed by various com- 

* Luke xxii. 15, 16. f Matt. xxvi. 28, 29. J Luke xxii. 28-30. 


IN THE WORSHIP OP GOD. 83 

mentators, that our Lord’s expressions, now cited, 
cannot be considered as relating exclusively to the 
world to come. When Jesus Christ had died on the 
cross, a sacrifice for the sins of the whole world, the 
type of the Passover had received its fulfillment in the 
kingdom of God. When his blood had been shed for 
many, for the remission of sins, and when he had 
ascended to the right hand of the Father Almighty, 
that kingdom or reign, conducted through the media¬ 
tion of the Messiah, was established in the earth. 
Then, therefore, did the day arrive, as we may fairly 
deduce from these impressive passages, when Jesus 
was again to eat the Passover with his disciples, and 
to drink the new wine in their company: according 
to his own declaration, on a subsequent occasion, 
“ Behold, I stand at the door and knock: if any man 
hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to 
him , and will sup with him, and he with me?' * When 
the faithful disciples of our glorified Redeemer open 
the door of the heart at the voice of his Holy Spirit; 
when, more especially, they are engaged in rendering 
unto him their joint and willing service, and are 
worshipping God in unison; he is often pleased to 
come in among them, to sup with them, and to permit 
them to sup with him. Then does he bring them into 


* Rev. iii. 20. 


84 ON THE DISUSE OF ALL TYPICAL RITES 


a holy fellowship with the Father, with himself, and 
one with another; breaks for them the bread of life, 
and gives them to drink of his most precious blood; 
and thus, while their souls are refreshed, nourished, 
and comforted, they are brought in a living and 
effective manner, to the remembrance of that cruci¬ 
fied Lord who is their strength, their joy, and their 
salvation. 

While Friends believe it best to abstain from that 
outward ceremony, which their Christian brethren 
have adopted, may they ever be partakers of the true 
supper of the Lord! May they ever remember the 
indispensable necessity of that living and abiding 
faith in Christ crucified, by which alone they can 
enjoy the communion of his body and blood. 1 
“ Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the 
flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have 
no life in you. Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh 
my blood, hath eternal life, and I will raise him up at 
the last day. For my flesh is meat indeed, and my 
blood is drink indeed. He that eateth my flesh, and 
drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me and I in him. As 
the living Father has sent me, and I live by the 
Father; so he that eateth me, even he shall live by 
me. This is that bread which came down from hea¬ 
ven; not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead; 
he that eateth of this bread shall live for ever.” * 

® John vi. 53—58. 


IN THE WORSHIP OP GOD. 


85 


On a general review, then, of the particular passages 
of the New Testament which relate to the observ¬ 
ance of ''he Lord’s Supper, I may venture to recapitu¬ 
late my own sentiments, that such a practice has 
no proper or necessary connexion with a spiritual 
feeding on the body and blood of Christ—that the his¬ 
tory of our Lord’s last paschal supper with his disciples 
affords no reason for believing that he then instituted 
a religious ceremony, which was thenceforth to form an 
essential part of the worship of Christians—that his 
injunction on that occasion, may be understood, 
either, as relating solely to the rites of the Passover, 
or as intended to give a religious direction to the 
more common social repasts of his disciples—that it 
was in connexion with such repasts, and particularly 
with their love-feasts, that the primitive Christians 
were accustomed to commemorate the death of Christ 
—that the custom of those love-feasts, however appro¬ 
priate to the circumstances of the earliest disciples, 
soon fell into abuse as the number of believers in¬ 
creased, and appears to be, in a great degree, inappli¬ 
cable to the present condition of the Christian world— 
and, lastly, that under the influence of the spiritual 
manifestations of our Redeemer, we may, without the 
bread and wine, participate in that true supper of the 
Lord, which he has himself so clearly upheld to the 
expectation of his disciples, and which alone is indis- 


86 ON THE DISUSE OF ALL TYPICAL RITES 


pensable for the edification, consolation, and salvation 
of his people. 

Although, for the reasons detailed in the present 
disquisition, it may fairly be concluded that the prac¬ 
tices of water-baptism and the Lord’s Supper are by 
no means needful, it is Certain that these practices 
have been very generally observed by the professors 
of the Christian name. This fact is easily explained, 
not only by the known power of example and tradi¬ 
tion, but also by that principle in our nature, which 
leads us so commonly to place our dependence upon 
outward and visible things. Man is naturally prone 
to trust in anything rather than the invisible Creator; 
and he is ever ready to make the formal ordinance a 
part of his religious system, because he can rely upon 
it with ease to himself, and may often find in it a plau¬ 
sible substitute for the mortification of his own will. 
Now, I would suggest that the ceremonies which we 
have been considering, so far from being like the 
moral law of God, universally salutary, are evidently 
fraught with no little danger, as occasions by which 
this deceitful disposition in the human heart is natu¬ 
rally excited and brought into action. And here our 
appeal may be made, not only to theory, but to facts; 
for, it is indisputable that the outward rites of baptism 
and the Supper, as observed among the professors of 
Christianity, have been the means of leading multi- 


IN THE WORSHIP OP GOD. 


87 


tudes into gross superstition. How many thousands 
of persons are there, as every spiritually-minded Chris¬ 
tian will allow, who place upon these outward rites a 
reliance which is warranted neither by reason nor by 
Scripture, and which, so far from bringing them 
nearer to God—so far from reminding them of Christ 
—operates in the most palpable manner as a diversion 
from a true and living faith in their Creator and Re¬ 
deemer ! How often has the ignorant sinner, even in 
the hour of death, depended on the “sacrament” of 
the Lord’s Supper as upon a saving ordinance I And 
how many a learned theologian, both ancient and 
modern, has been found, to insist on the dangerous 
tenet, that the rite of baptism is regeneration ! 

While the Society of Friends believe that ordinances 
which are so peculiarly liable to abuse, and which 
have been the means of exciting, not only the super¬ 
stitions now alluded to, but endless divisions and con¬ 
tentions, and many cruel persecutions in the church, 
cannot truly appertain to the law of God; while they 
are persuaded, on the contrary, that the spirituality 
of that law is opposed to the continued observance of 
any typical religious rite; and while, on these grounds, 
they consider themselves amply justified in the omis¬ 
sion of such practices; they entertain, I trust, no dis¬ 
position whatsoever to judge their fellow believers who 
conscientiously make use of these ceremonies. There 


88 ON THE DISUSE OF ALL TYPICAL RITES 


are, as I believe, many persons who avail themselves 
of the rites in question, on principles which cannot be 
deemed superstitious; and who even derive, through 
these signs and memorials , some real instruction and 
edification. Such instances may serve to convince us 
that God continues to accept the sincere heart, and 
that he is still pleased to bless a variety of means to a 
variety of conditions. Nevertheless, I cannot but 
deem it probable, that as serious Christians, not of our 
profession, draw yet nearer in spirit to an omnipresent 
Deity, they will be permitted to find, in the disuse of 
all types , “ a more excellent way.” 


IN THE WORSHIP OF GOD. 


89 


ADDENDUM. 
a. d. 1834. 

It has not been without pain and conflict to myself 
that I have pleaded, or at least apologized, for the dis¬ 
use of practices, which many sincere Christians would 
seem to value like the apple of their eye. Yet the 
feelings which are thus entertained on the subject by 
so large a proportion of the followers of Christ, may be 
one reason why Friends have been led to uphold a 
more spiritual standard ; nor could we, in my opinion, 
forsake the high ground which we have hitherto occu¬ 
pied, respecting forms and ceremonies in worship, 
without inflicting a serious injury on the cause of 
truth; and therefore on the whole church of our Lord 
Jesus Christ. 

After a lapse of more than ten years since this work 
was published, and after many a review of the points 
here discussed, I do not find that I have any thing ma¬ 
terial to alter in the foregoing chapter. It may not, 
however, be amiss, even at the risk of repetition, now 
to state, in a concentrated manner, the views of baptism 
and the Lord’s Supper, which continue to be satisfac¬ 
tory to my own mind, and on which it seems graciously 
permitted to repose. For this purpose I beg to offer 


90 ON THE DISUSE OF ALL TYPICAL RITES 

to the attention of the reader the following proposi¬ 
tions, which I wish to be regarded not in the light of 
dogmatic assertions —for these I can have no right to 
make—but as the plain expression of my own delibe¬ 
rate sentiments. 

I. Under the gospel dispensation the worship of 
God is at once simple and spiritual; it is the commu¬ 
nion of the soul of man with his Creator, under the 
direct influence of the Spirit, and through the sole 
mediation of our Lord Jesus Christ. 

II. Consistently with this truth, all observances in 
worship which are of a purely ceremonial nature, all 
mere types and shadows, are at once fulfilled and abro¬ 
gated by the great realities of the gospel of Christ. 

III. The rite of water-baptism exactly answers to 
this description. It is in its nature wholly ceremonial; 
it is a mere shadow or figure, and therefore, unless some 
peculiar and sufficient cause be shown to the contrary, 
it can have no permanent place in the system of 
Christianity. 

IV. The history of the rite affords no evidence that 
it is an exception to the general rule ; but rather the 
contrary. Washing or dipping in water, under vari¬ 
ous forms, was ordained as a part of the Mosaic ritual, 
and was often practised as a figure of purification. In 
that peculiar mode, in which John the Baptist and the 
apostles used it, it was employed by the Jews, both 


IN THE WORSHIP OF GOD. 


91 


before and after the Christian era, on the admission of 
proselytes into the church; and in all these cases, it 
was the obvious type of repentance and conversion. 
John, who lived under the law, baptized by divine au¬ 
thority ; and Jesus himself submitted to his baptism, 
as part of the righteousness which then was. The apos¬ 
tles observed the rite, as they did a variety of other 
Jewish ceremonies, and having connected it in their 
practice with conversion to Christianity, they applied 
it even to the Gentiles. But Christ himself, as the 
Institutor of the gospel dispensation, baptized not; 
and Paul, who to a great extent personally abstained 
from the use of this ceremony, declares that he had re¬ 
ceived no commission from Christ to perform it. 

V. Shortly before his ascension, the Lord Jesus 
commanded his apostles to go and make disciples of 
all nations, “ baptizing them into the name of the 
Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.” That 
the use made by the apostles of water-baptism is not 
to be ascribed to this command, is clear from the fact 
that they employed the rite before the command was 
issued. That the command is to be understood only 
in a spiritual sense—as indicating “the washing of 
water by the word”—may be inferred from the figura¬ 
tive use which our Lord has elsewhere made of the 
word baptize, from his own doctrine respecting the 
spirituality of true worship, and from the distinction 


92 ON THE DISUSE OF ALL TYPICAL RITES 

which he so clearly drew, between the water-baptism 
of John, and Christian baptism by the Spirit. It may 
also be inferred from the declaration of Paul—an un¬ 
doubted partaker in the apostolic commission—that 
the Lord Jesus did not send him to baptize with water 
but to preach the gospel. 

Had a typical ceremony thus binding on the church 
been here instituted, the analogy of the Jewish law 
would lead us to expect the most precise directions, as 
to the persons who should perform it; and as to the 
manner, times, and circumstances, in which it should 
be performed. But no such directions are given, and 
Christians who admit the continued authority of the 
rite, are left, in reference to these particulars, in a 
state of irremediable doubt and dispute. 

VI. In the mean time Christianity has a baptism 
of its own, of which our Lord and his apostles made 
frequent mention, without attaching to it the condi¬ 
tion or accompaniment of any outward ceremony. It 
is that of Christ himself, “ with the Holy Ghost and 
with fire and is productive of a new birth, by the 
Spirit. It is the baptism which “ now saveth us,” and 
which brings the “ answer of a good conscience to¬ 
wards God, by the resurrection of Jesus Christ;” it is 
“ the washing of regeneration and renewing of the 
Holy Ghost.” This baptism properly agrees with the 
nature and character of Christianity, and coincides 


IN THE WORSHIP OF GOD. 


93 


with that worship of God, which is “in spirit and in 
truth.” Without it, the sinner cannot be converted, 
or joined in fellowship with the church ; without it, 
the soul of the believer can never be prepared for an 
entrance into heaven. 

VII. Whatsoever opinion therefore they may enter¬ 
tain respecting the ceremonial rite, this is the baptism 
on which Christians of every denomination ought 
chiefly to insist, and in so doing, they will not fail to 
experience “ the unity of the Spirit in the bond of 
peace.” 


I. When the Lord Jesus celebrated his last Pass- 
over-supper with his disciples, “he took bread, and 
when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take 
eat; this is my body which is broken for you^ this do 
in remembrance of me. After the same manner also 
he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, This 
cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as 
oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me.” 

II. The words used by our Lord on this solemn 
occasion, afford no more evidence that the bread which 
he brake was itself his body, than they do, that the 
cup which he held in his hand, was itself the new 
testament in his blood. The bread was distinct and 
separate from his body, occupying a different part of 



94 ON THE DISUSE OF ALL TYPICAL RITES 


space, and could not possibly be the same with it. 
But the bread represented his body, which was about 
to be broken for many; and the wine in the cup was a 
symbol of his blood, which was about to be shed for 
many, for the remission of sins. 

III. It was at an actual meal, intended for bodily 
refreshment, that our Saviour thus addressed his disci¬ 
ples ; and when, in conformity with his command, the 
earliest Christians partook of “ the Lord’s Supper,” 
there was no mystery in the observance; much less 
was any miraculous change wrought upon their food. 
Convened from time to time, at their social repasts , 
they brake their bread, and handed round their cup of 
wine, in the sweet fellowship of the gospel of Christ, 
and in solemn remembrance of his death. 

IY. The Scriptures do not appear to afford us any 
sufficient proof that the command on which this cus¬ 
tom was founded, was intended for the whole church 
of Christ in all ages, any more than our Lord’s injunc¬ 
tion to his disciples to wash one au other’s feet. There 
is nothing however in the practice itself, as it was 
thus observed by the primitive believers, inconsistent 
with the general law, that all mere types and figures in 
worship are abolished under the gospel. Let Chris¬ 
tians, when they eat their meat together “ with glad¬ 
ness and singleness of heart,” still be reminded by their 
very food, of the Lord who bought them. Let them, 


IN THE WORSHIP OF GOD. 


95 


more often than the day, gratefully recollect their 
divine Master, “ who bare our sins in his own body, on 
the tree/’ and whose precious blood was shed for all 
mankind. 

Y. But no sooner was this practice changed from its 
original simple character, employed as a part of the 
public worship of God, and converted into a purely 
ceremonial rite, than the state of the case was en¬ 
tirely altered. The great principle that God is to be 
worshipped in spirit and in truth, was infringed; and, 
as far as relates to this particular, a return took place 
to the old legal system of forms and shadows. 

VI. It is probably in consequence of this change— 
the invention and contrivance of man—that an ordi¬ 
nance, of which the sole purpose was the thankful re¬ 
membrance of the death of Jesus, has been abused to 
an astonishing extent. Nothing among professing 
Christians has been perverted into an occasion of so 
much superstition ; few things have been the means of 
staining the annals of the church with so much 
blood. 

VII. <l It is the Spirit that quickeneth,” as our Saviour 
himself has taught us, u the flesh profiteth nothing /’> 
aad Christianity is distinguished by a spiritual supper, 
as well as baptism. To partake of this supper is es¬ 
sential to our salvation. We can never have a claim 
on the hopes and joys set before us in the gospel, un- 


96 ON THE DISUSE OF ALL TYPICAL RITES. 


less we feed, by a living faith, on the bread which 
came down from heaven, and giveth life to the world 
—unless we “ eat the flesh of the Son of man, and 
drink his blood.” Now they who partake of this ce¬ 
lestial food, are fellow members of one body; they 
are joined together by a social compact of the dearest 
and holiest character, because they all commune with 
the same glorious Head. They are one in Christ 
Jesus; and when they meet in solemn worship— 
Christ himself being present—they are guests, even 
here, at the table of their Lord, and drink the wine 
“ new,” with him “ in his kingdom.” 

May this be the happy experience of all who read 
this volume, whether they use, or disuse what is called 
the sacrament of the supper! 








































* 









































